The petitioner Shahbaz Ahmad seeks bail after arrest in case FIR No, 464/05 dated 4.11.2005 for offences under Sections 302/324/452/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/148/149 PPC registered at Police Station Mangtanwala, District Nankana Sahib.
2. According to the FIR, on 4.11.2005 at 6.00 p.m. the petitioner armed with pistol .30-bore along with his co-accused criminally trespassed into the house of the complainant in order to teach him a lesson for purchase of land. The co-accused fired with his carbine hitting on abdomen of Abdul Sattar who lost his breath at the spot. The petitioner and co-accused resorted to the aerial firing.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that only presence of the petitioner at the spot is shown without any role. Only co-accused Zahoor Ahmad, Abdul Latif and Asif have been awarded punishment. The petitioner has been shown as a absconder whereas mere absconsion is no offence while for the last eight months he is in jail without trial.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed all these grounds.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned DPG for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, I find that the persons who were accused of the similar role, have been acquitted during trial. The only distinguishing feature against the present petitioner was his abscondence. There is no dearth of authority that mere abscondence may not be sufficient to withhold bail if otherwise justified on facts. It cannot be altogether denied that even innocent persons, when are indicated for serious offences like murders, run away on account of fear of third-degree-methods of police and the obduracy shown by their antagonists. In the present case, I find that the petitioner had only resorted to aerial firing as per FIR itself. Some other persons who were also similarly accused were acquitted at trial. The case against the petitioner, in my view, requires further inquiry entitling him to the grant of bail. He is behind the bars for the last eight months and conclusion of trial is not in sight. I, therefore, admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- with-one surety on in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.