' MUHAMMAD KAMRAN KHAN MULAKHAIL, J.---Through this application the applicant has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,148 of 2011, lodged with Police Station Bijli Road, Quetta under sections 302, 109 and 34, P.P.C.. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 28-10-2011 at about 8-30 a.m. Complainant Muhammad Dawood along with deceased Muhammad Anwar, their paternal cousins Muhammad Farooq and Muhammad Abid were on their way to the High Court to attend their case, when near Jamia Masjid Jinnah Town two persons riding on motorcycle intercepted them and made firing upon them. Resultantly, Muhammad Anwar received bullet injuries on his person, while accused persons were identified as applicant Ejaz Ahmed and absconding accused Muhammad Ashraf. The injured was rushed to Civil Hospital, Quetta, but he succumbed to his injuries on a way to the hospital. The motive behind the occurrence is stated to be previous enmity between the parties. Earlier the application for the same relief had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge Ad hoc, Quetta vide order dated 26-12-2013.
2. Mr. Muhammad Qahir Shah, learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset referred to a judgment dated 29th March, 2013 passed in Sessions Case No,42 of 2012 by the same court, whereby, the co-accused persons Haji Muhammad Aslam and Noor Muhammad, who were alleged for abetment and instigation towards the main offence were acquitted of the charge.
Learned counsel contended that accused is behind the bars and challan has also been submitted against him and since in the previous round of trial, witnesses have already been examined, therefore, there is no probability of further improvement in the prosecution case. He stated that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant, as well as, to his absconding co-accused and it cannot be ascertained that in the presence of four companions, only one of them was hit and succumbed to his injuries, while the rest of his companions neither intercepted nor received any injury, since the complainant, as well as, alleged eye-witnesses are paternal cousins of deceased thus are not worthy of credence being interested and inimical towards applicant/accused. He further stated that the F.I.R. Was lodged with delay of one hour and fifteen minutes and that too without any explanation, which shows that the same was lodged after deliberation and consultation. He added that the alleged motive as stated in the F.I.R. Is shrouded in mysteries because the family of deceased is having certain other tribal enmities involving blood transactions. He stated that so far only the complainant has been examined, while the trial Court when dealing with the question of bail has relied upon the statement of witnesses, whose statements were recorded during the previous round of trial, whereas the case requires further probe entitling the applicant to be admitted to bail, but the trial Court has declined the concession of bail on basis of absconsion, which cannot be made basis for withholding the bail.
3. Miss Sarwat Hina, Additional Prosecutor-General strongly opposed the intention and stated that not only absconsion but ocular account and sufficient corroborating evidence are available against the applicant. She stated that the applicant is not entitled for concession of bail as his wilful absconcion is floating on the surface connecting him with the commission of offence. She further pointed out that plea of Alibi has been introduced in cross-examination but no such evidence was brought during the course of investigation. She finally contended that there is sufficient incriminating evidence against the applicant on basis whereof he is not entitled for concession of bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the record with their valuable assistance, though the tentative assessm ent has to be made, while dealing with the question of bail, but same cannot be decided in vacuum because the learned counsel has raised a number of contentions, which are required to be dealt within the law of bail laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court, therefore, just for disposal of the application in hand, same are required to be discussed turn by turn.
5. As far as the acquittal of the co-accused viz Haji Muhammad Aslam and Noor Muhammad vide judgment dated 29th March, 2013 is concerned. In fact the record does not suggest anything, which could bring the case of the applicant at par with that of acquitted co-accused persons, because only the allegation of abetment and instigation was leveled against the acquitted co-accused, while the applicant/accused has been assigned overt act towards commission of the offence.
Thus the doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one thing, false in all), which is admittedly not applicable in the prevalent system of criminal administration of justice and moreso, there is no rule universally applicable that where one set of accused is not found guilty the other accused ipso facto stand acquitted, because the court has to shift the grain from chaff. Reference is made to Samano v. State 1973 . SCMR 162 and Riaz Hussain v. The State 2001 SCM R 177. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal dated 29th March, 2013 would be of no avail to the accused/applicant as his case being entirely distinguishable from that of the acquitted co-accused persons.
6. It is admitted feature of the case in hand that the applicant accused, who was the complainant against the deceased in F.I.R. No,81 of 2009 in which case the deceased was charged for the murder of the brother of accused. Thus, the motive is an energetic source of mind, which provides a propelling force and gives impetus to perform any action or to do any act. There is no cavil to the proposition that "motive is a double-edged weapon but its significance and importance cannot be ighored. It cannot be sine qua non for bringing offence home to accused, yet relevant and significant enough to determine the factum of intention and can be considered in view of facts and circumstances of the case". Thus, the substitution of real culprits with the accused/applicant due to already available motive between deceased and accused is not acceptable. Merely on the basis of inter se relationship the statement of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded because it is not the relationship but the value of the evidence, which matters. It is well-settled by now that interested witness is the one who has the motive to falsely implicate the accused or has some rancor or enmity. There is no rule of law that statement of interested witness cannot be considered but the same can safely be relied upon if supported by the surrounding circumstances. In the instant case admittedly no one else was targeted but the deceased, who was accused for murder of brother of accused/applicant. Reference is made to the case titled Muhammad Mansha v. The State 2001 SCM R 199 and Noor Elahi's case reported in PLD 1976 SC 557.
6. It is worth-mentioning that a tentative perusal of record further that after commission of the alleged offence the applicant remained absconder from law for considerable period of more than two years. Though, the mere abscondance by itself is not sufficient to refuse the bail to an accused, yet if proceeding under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Have been initiated in the first round of litigation, then it can be considered as a strong piece of corroborative piece of evidence to the other direct and circumstantial evidence of the case. As the accused/applicant is fugitive of law since long, therefore, his conduct, after the incident prima facie, is indicative of his guilt, when considered in conjunction with the other ocular and circumstantial evidence. Reference is made to Muhammad Arshad v. Qasim Ali 1992 SCM R 814, Rohtas Khan v. The State 2010 SCM R 566 and Amanullah v. The State 2002 PCr.LJ 1934.
7. The perusal of record shows that according to police proceeding deceased was brought to the hospital by the complainant and his other companions and he soon after arrival of concerned police submitted his written report, furnishing complete account of the occurrence, therefore, the delay of 1 hour and 15 minutes cannot be considered as fatal to the prosecution case, therefore, the overall net of accusations against the accused/applicant disentitles him for concession of bail and he has been failed to make out a case for bail.
' Needless to observe here that observations made hereinabove are purely tentative in nature and made for disposal of instant application, therefore, the trial Court while deciding the fate of the case should not be influenced by the above observation. The application is accordingly dismissed.