' SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.---Petitioner-accused Khalid Khan stands charged under sections 302/34, P.P.C. Vide F.I.R. No,361 dated 4-7-2009 registered at Police Station, Tank. He was refused the concession of bail from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Tank vide order dated 7-5-2011 and now he has come up to this Court for seeking his release on bail.
2. The allegations as contained in the F.I.R. Are that on 4-7-2009 at 1930 hours the petitioner- accused along with his co-accused committed the murder of deceased Fazal Muhammad Khan.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused contended that the case against the petitioner- accused is based on no evidence at all. Moreover, there is the un-explained delay of three hours in lodging the F.I.R. The circumstantial evidence does not connect the petitioner with the offence in any manner. The petitioner-accused has been implicated on account of dispute on thoroughfare which cannot be considered of such a nature which could prompt the accused to commit the murder of the deceased. He further contended that three accused are charged for murder of the deceased and it is not known as to whose fire proved fatal, which makes the case arguable for the purpose of bail. The complainant has not disclosed the sdurce of information. The empties recovered from the spot have not been sent to F.S.L to know as to with which weapon those were fired. The learned counsel placed reliance on 2011 SCM R 710, 2011 YLR 956 and 2003 YLR 1378.
4. As against that, the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the petitioner-accused has directly been charged in the promptly lodged F.I.R. Supported by medical report, site plan, recovery of empties and blood-stained earth. He further contended that the petitioner-accused remained fugitive from law for a sufficient long time and in such circumstances, the petitioner- accused is not entitled for the concession of bail. He placed reliance on 2010 YLR 1021 and 2010 YLR 1899.
5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that though the petitioner-accused is directly charged in the F.I.R.
Along with his brother and father but admittedly the complainant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence. She has also not disclosed the source of information. Mere nomination of the accused in the F.I.R. Would not render the petitioner to have any nexus with the crime. Moreover, three accused have been charged in the F.I.R. Whereas the deceased sustained two injury wounds. A present, it cannot be ascertained as to which of the accused caused these injuries. The recovery of blood stained earth and empties are not sufficient to link the petitioner-accused with the commission of crime. The mere abscondence of the petitioner-accused would not disentitle him from the concession of bail. In this respect, reference can be made to the case of Jamshed Ahmad v. The State (2003 YLR 1378 Lahore) wherein it has been held that:-- "It is also settled proposition in law that if the case of the accused is otherwise found fit for bail on merits, he cannot be refused bail even, if he has remained absconder. While, it may be mentioned here that it has not been shown from the record by the prosecution's side that he in fact has been declared so."
7. The accumulative effect of the above circumstances is that the case of the petitioner-accused needs further inquiry into his guilt and he is entitled to the concession of bail.
8. In view of the above, this petition is accepted and the petitioner- accused is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Judicial Magistrate.
9. Above are the detailed reasons for my short order dated 3-6-2011.