' Husnain Abbas, the, petitioner seeks the grant of post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 119/2009 dated 05.05.2009 registered under Sections 302, 324, 148, 149 and 109P.P.C at Police Station Kot Mithan, District, Rajanpur.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 05.05.2009 at 9:00 a.m. He and seven co-accused formed an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common intention made an assault on Malik Hamid and Hidayat Ullah, father and brother of the complainant, respectively. Hidayat Ullah succumbed to the injuries, whereas Malik Hamid suffered injuries at the hands of the accused.
3. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he was armed with a Kalashnikov, and held out threats to the complainant and others that if they dame near the deceased and the injured, they would also be done to death.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. From a perusal of the F.I.R., it is crystal clear that no overt act is attributed to the petitioner. There is no allegation against him either that he made ineffective firing. At worst, he is stated to be present at the time of occurrence. It is alleged by the prosecution that the petitioner was a fugitive from the law. He did not face the trial and re-emerged/resurfaced when the trial of the co- accused was over. Some co-accused are said to have been convicted and sentenced while others were acquitted. The co-accused Rasheed, who was attributed the same role as the one ascribed to the petitioner, was acquitted of the charge brought against him. In the circumstances, the mere fact that the petitioner went into hiding after the occurrence is not to be held against him. It bears repeating that he did not take part in the occurrence. Almost all of his family members were involved in the case. People are constituted differently. A few of them do not shrink from fear, while others seek safe heaven. Unless there is other incriminating material connecting an accused with the commission of a particular offence, the abscondance alone is not to furnish a ground to decline bail to him. It is advantageous to make reference to the observations of the Supreme Court made in the case of "Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others" (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 222). The relevant lines therefrom are reproduced: "It has vehemently been argued by the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State that the petitioner had remained a Proclaimed Offender for a period of about four years and, thus, he is not entitled to any indulgence in the matter of bail. We have, 'however, not felt persuaded to agree with the learned Additional Prosecutor-General in this regard. It has already been held by this Court in the cases of Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul and others (1985 SCM R 382) and Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others (PLD 1985 SC 182) that in a case calling for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused person bail is to be allowed to him as of right and such right cannot be refused to him merely on account of his alleged abscondance which is a factor relevant only to propriety."
6. There are sufficient grounds calling for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner within the purview of sub-section (2) of Section 497, Cr.P.C. He is, therefore, admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing surety/bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- (Rupees One Hundred Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.