ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.---Having failed to secure his release on bail in the lower Courts, petitioner has apprdached this Court, for seeking the same relief.
2. Facts as narrated in tile F.I.R. Are that on 25-9-2004, complainant Ali Baz Khan reported the matter to the police on the spot that on the same day he, his brother Hazrat Ali and nephew Israrullah were present in their baitak and were watching T.V. At about 2200 hours, accused Mustafaullah, Inayatullah and Rafiullah came there and they arranged tea program for them. After taking tea, complainant with his nephew Israrullah went to the other room of baitak while his brother Hazrat Ali and accused were busy in gossiping. He reported that accused closed the small window between the two rooms of the baitak and started playing type-recorder in high volume. At about 0200 hours, hue and cry awoke the complainant and Israrullah. They saw, through window, accused Mustafaullah with tape recorded in his hand and accused Inayatullah with TV of Hazrat Ali while running. They tried to get them out but the door of the room was chained from outside. At morning time his brother opened the door and they found Hazrat Ali dead in burnt condition by throwing acid at him. Complainant charged the accused for the offence and disclosed motive behind the occurrence as money dispute with accused party. On his report case F.I.R. No.248 dated 25-9-2004 under section 302/324/34, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station, Ghuriwala District Bannu.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that two main accused namely Mustafaullah and Inayatullah have been acquitted vide order dated 2-3-2009. He further contended that same evidence would be examined against the present petitioner which would serve no purpose. He further argued that there is no evidence at all against the petitioner. He referred to F.I.R. And stated that the complainant saw Mustafaullah and Inayatullah along with Tape Recorder and TV while decamping from the baitak at the time of occurrence. According to learned counsel for petitioner, the present petitioner Rafiullah has not been mentioned along with the said accused and only evidence against petitioner is his abscontion.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel of the complainant argued that petitioner has been directly charged in promptly lodged F.I.R. And he remained Absconder for a long period, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. Perusal of F.I.R. Would reveal that three accused including the petitioner, were present in the baitak of the complainant along with deceased. The complainant was sitting in the nearby room when he heard some noise from the baitak at 02.00 hours with which he came out and saw Mustafaullah along with Tape Recorder and Inayatullah along with TV running. The room of the complainant was locked, therefore; he could do nothing and in the morning when the door was opened and they came near Hazrat Ali, he was found dead. As far as the contents of F.I.R. Are concerned it reveals that Mustafullah and Inayatullah were seen by complainant while decamping from the spot along with. Tape Recorder and TV and the present petitioner was not with them. This fact makes the case of the petitioner arguable for the purpose of bail. The abscontion is a matter to be seen at the stage of trial, because no other circumstances are available against the accused.
6. Besides the above fact two main co-accused Mustafullah and Inayatullah have been acquitted by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Bannu 2-3-2009, on the same evidence which is to be produced by the A prosecution in the trial of the petitioner.
7. In the light of the above circumstances the case of petitioner requires further inquiry into his guilt.
Therefore, he is allowed to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, Bannu. The sureties must be local, reliable and men of sufficient means.