' The above titled revision petition has been directed against the order of District Criminal Court Kotli dated 6.08.2013, whereby the accused-petitioner was declined bail.
2. The brief facts forming the background of the instant revision petition are that a case under Section 324, 337, A.P.0 was registered at Police Station, City Kotli on the complaint of Mushtaq son of Jan Muhammad. It was reported that few days prior to the occurrence, an altercation took place between the accused-petitioner and his father, Jan Muhammad. On 15.12.2006, at 8:00 a.m., the accused-petitioner was standing outside of his house. As the complainant and his father arrived near the accused, who was already armed with dagger, gave stab at the abdomen of father of the complainant with intention to kill him. The complainant tried to rescue him upon which the accused also attacked and caused injury at his right leg. He was also alleged for beating to Mst.
Naheed wife of Iftikhar, who is brother's wife of accused. The occurrence was stated to be witnessed by father, Aqal Muhammad and other residents of the village who rescued them.
3. After arrest, the accused-petitioner applied for bail before the trial Court on 22.7.2013, which was refused vide order dated 25.7.2013, while second bail application was also dismissed by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli through the impugned order dated 6.08.2013, hence this revision petition.
4. Abdus Salam Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Court below while refusing bail failed to appreciate that an enmity was prevailing between the parties due to which he was roped in a false case. He further argued that the complainant's father is the uncle of the accused and after the occurrence, they have also compromised, as such he went abroad. The learned counsel zealously argued that at the time of commission of Offence, the accused- petitioner was a teenager, therefore he cannot be deprived from the concession of bail. According to the learned counsel the F.I.R was lodged after a considerable delay and no reasonable explanation in this respect was brought on record. He further argued that the investigation was complete and the petitioner was not physically required for the purpose, thus his case was not covered by prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And prima facie case against him requires further probe, therefore, by accepting the revision petition and setting aside the impugned order, the bail May be granted. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel cited the following case law:--
1. 1987 P. Cr.L.J 2757;
2. 1987 P. Cr.L.J 1088;
3. 1989 P. Cr.L.J 1004;
5. On the other hand, Malik Muhammad Zarriat, the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the occurrence took place during broad day light. Identification of the accused petitioner was not in doubt. He was nominated in promptly lodged F.I.R. Name of the offender and the injured eye- witnesses were also mentioned therein. He was ascribed specific role of causing dagger injuries to father and complainant. After committing the offence, he intentionally absconded for the period of seven years. The allegation leveled against him was supported by statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. And medico-legal reports pertaining to the victims, thus a prima facie case connecting the accused petitioner with the alleged offence existed on record and it cannot be said that the Court below committed any error while refusing bail, therefore, the revision petition may be dismissed. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel cited the following case law:--
1. 2002 SCR 284.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General supported the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the complainant.
7 I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
'8. It is by now settled `principle of law, that while deciding the bail matter, neither any deeper appreciation nor detailed scrutiny of the evidence is permissible. Only tentative assessment of the record is required for the purpose.
9. A careful consideration of the record reveals that prior to the occurrence an altercation took place between the accused and complainant party. It is relevant to note here that the occurrence took place at the house of the accused, therefore it could not be determined at this stage that who was the aggressor and who aggressed upon, because an enmity was prevailing between the parties. The father of the accused, Akal Muhammad and Mst. Naheed (brother's wife) were also present at the place of occurrence, but the prosecution failed to cite hem in the calendar of challan, whose statements were very much important. It will not be out of place to mention here that accused-petitioner has not repeated the act of stab. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that after the occurrence, the elders of the family settled a compromise, as such he went abroad. It also reveals from perusal of statement of the accused-Petitioner recorded under Section 242, Cr.P.0 shows that he was a teenager, prima facie the case of the accused-petitioner fails within the ambit of further probe, therefore he cannot be deprived from the concession of I bail. Even otherwise, the bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.
10. So far as the question whether bail can be refused only on the basis of absconsion or it has to be decided while keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. It is established principle of law that bail matters always have to be decided on merits and technicalities should not defeat the justice to be administered. No doubt absconder loses some rights like bail, but overall circumstances have to be kept in sight while deciding bail matter. It has been held by the Apex Court in a case titled "Muhammad Jahangir Hussain V. Kala Khan" [2004 SCR 359], wherein it was observed as under:- "So far as the point of absconsion of accused persons is concerned, it may be stated that mere absconsion is not the conclusive proof of guilt of accused-persons. It is only a suspicious circumstance against an accused that he was finding himself guilty of the offence, as such he absconded from the scene of occurrence son after the commission of crime. However, let us make it clear that suspicions after all are suspicions. The same cannot take the place of proofs. We in our life have noticed that some persons who are accused of murder, even if they are innocent they feel themselves insecure and go away or conceal themselves .Up to certain limit so that their innocence is established with the police. The value of absconsion therefore depends on the facts of each case. We admitted it as supporting evidence of the guilt of accused. The absconsion of the accused which is to be decided keeping in view in overall facts of the case."
' It was further held in a case titled "Fazal-e-Rabi V. State & another" [2008 SCR-495], wherein it was observed as under: "The question is whether bail can be refused only on the ground of absconsion or it has to be decided while keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. It is an established principle of law that matters always have to be decided on merits and technicalities should not defeat the justice to be administered. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the approach of the Court should always be dynamic and technicalities should not be given weight and cases should always be decided on merits keeping in view the fact and circumstances of the case. While deciding a bail application the Court has to look into the FIR, statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. And other relevant material."
' In view of the above observations of Apex Court, it can safely be held that bail cannot be refused only on the ground of absconsion.
' In light of the fiats listed above, I accept this revision petition setting aside the impugned order and it is ordered that he accused-petitioner shall be released on bail forthwith on furnishing bail bond in sum of Rs,10,00000/- (ten lac) and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the accused.