1. ' MUHAMMAD IQBAL MAHAR, J.--- This bail application is directed against the order, dated 2-6-2008 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Crime No,207 of 2001 of Police Station Market, for offence punishable under sections 302, 324, 337-A(v), 34, P.P.C.
2. ' Precisely, the prosecution story is that on 14-11-2001 the complainant Imdad Hussain Shaikh, lodged the F.I.R. Stating therein that on 13-11-2001 at about 2-30 p.m. He along with his son Sabteen Hyder went at the house of his brother Aijaz Shaikh at Hyder Chowk as he was unwell, where they found Ghulam Ali Shaikh, C.M.D. Of Central Prison, Hyderabad and another younger brother of complainant. The complainant, his son and brother Ghulam Ali Shaikh left house of Aijaz Shaikh at about 3-30 p.m. As Dr. Ghulam Ali went on his Motorcycle bearing No,HDF-4345, the complainant and his son noticed that accused Kehar Ansari and his three accomplices standing there started chasing Dr. Ghulam Ali on two motorcycles, on which the complainant and son immediately engaged Rickshaw and followed the culprits, the culprits Kehar Ansari and his accomplices remained at a little distance ahead of complainant. The complainant saw the culprits turned towards Doctor's Colony and after intercepting Dr. Ghulam Ali Shaikh they started hitting him with pistol butt on his head. It is further stated by the complainant that the culprits seeing them fled away, Dr. Ghulam Ali Shaikh was lying on ground tilted with blood, then the complainant and his son with the help of three others who were present there carried him at Civil Hospital in unconscious condition. Thereafter the complainant initially lodged F.I.R. Under section 324, 337- A(v), 34, P.P.C. And as on 22-11-2001 injured Ghulam Ali Shaikh succumbed to his injuries at hospital, hence section 302, P.P.C. Was inserted in the F.I.R.
3. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that the name of the applicant does not transpire in F.I.R. And 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of P.Ws. But he has been involved on the basis of statement of co-accused before police. He further contended that 2 co-accused persons have been granted bail by trial Court and the case against the applicant/accused is on same footing, therefore, he prayed for grant of bail.
4. ' The learned counsel appearing for the State has no objection to the grant of bail.
5. ' I have heard carefully considered the arguments of learned counsel for the applicant/accused and have gone through the impugned order passed by learned Lind Additional Sessions. Judge, Hyderabad. It is an admitted fact the name of the applicant does not appear in F.I.R. As well as 161, Cr.P,C. Of P.Ws. And the case against the applicant/accused is identical to that of co-accused who have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court, but the reason for refusing the bail to the applicant by the trial Court is that he remained fugitive from law. On inquiry regarding the abscondance of applicant the learned counsel for applicant referred the copy of challan which shows only the name of absconder Zainul Abdin alias Zain son of not known resident of University Tando Jam and submitted that neither name of father of applicant nor caste and nor proper address is shown whereas the NIC of applicant shows name and address as shown on the tile page of this bail application. All this shows that abscondance was not deliberate. Even otherwise bail cannot be refused to an accused merely for his abscondance if he is entitled to grant of bail on merits. This principle has laid down in cases reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 1058, 1995 PCr.LJ 1316 and 2009 SCM R 299.
6. ' Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I allow this application and grant bail to the applicant/accused subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.