' M.A. ZAFAR, J.---Muhammad Irfan petitioner seeks bail in a case F.I.R. No.395/2005, date 31-8-2008 registered under sections 302/ 324/148/149, P.P.C. With Police Station Sharaqpur Sharif, District Sheikhupura at the instant of Majid Ali. As per allegations 8 accused named in the F.I.R. Including the present petitioner were armed with Churris and they all in furtherance of their common object caused injuries to Ahmad Ali deceased and injured Majid Ali. According to the F.I.R. Muhammad Irfan petitioner injured Majid Ali P.W.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his petition submits that the petitioner has not been assigned any injury on the person of the deceased, nothing has been recovered from the petitioner and if any recovery is there the same is planted one. He submits that only role of causing injury to the complainant has been attributed to the petitioner and according to the nature of injuries the sentence is one year's R.I. Only. He further submits that co-accused of Shaukat Ali and Usman have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order, dated 12-10-2007 and 15-1-2008 and the role of the petitioner is similar and akin to that of the accused who have been granted bail by this Court as such on the basis of rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail. He further submits that Shaukat co-accused of the present petitioner also received two fire- arm injuries on his person and which fact has been suppressed by the prosecution.
3. On the other hand learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has opposed the grant of bail and submits that petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With specific role and recovery was also effected from him and he remained absconder for about 20 months.
4. Heard. Petitioner is nominated in the prompt F.I.R. With a specific role of causing injuries to Majid Ali complainant. There are four injuries on the person of Majid Ali complainant and six injuries on the person of the deceased. It will be for the trial Court to determine whether the petitioner shared the common object or not, any observation made by this Court at this stage may prejudice the case of either side at the trial. The occurrence took place on 31-8-2005 and as urged by the learned counsel for the complainant, petitioner after the dismissal of pre-arrest bail from the Court of Session became fugitive and was not available' to the police till his arrest on 2-5-2007. This is a strong circumstance which goes against the petitioner while considering bail which is an extraordinary relief. Except placing on record the Medico-legal Report of Shaukat Ali no other document has been placed by the petitioner whether any F.I.R. Was registered or complaint was filed and what was the fate of the complaint. Although while controverting the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner learned counsel for the complainant stated that the complaint filed by the petitioner side has already been withdrawn by them on 19-11-2007. According to the prosecution Chhuri has also been recovered from the present petitioner on 9-5-2007. The case of the co-accused who were granted bail from this Court are quite distinguishable. Shaukat Ali was granted bail mainly for the reason that a Chhuri blow on the palm of left hand of Ahmad Ali deceased attributed to him was not borne out from the post-mortem examination and similarly Usman co-accused of the present petitioner was granted bail for the reason that the injury No. 2 on the person of the deceased attributed to him was also attributed to Khuram co-accused of the present petitioner and the injury attributed to Usman on the person of Majid Ali P.W. Being on the non-vital part of the body and as per investigation he was found present empty handed and not causing any injury to any person. Thus obviously the case of the present petitioner is quite distinguishable to those who have been granted bail.
5. For what has been stated above, there is hardly any good ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
Resultantly the present petition is dismissed.