' Petitioner Umar Gul seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 727 dated 10.12.2011, registered u/S. 302/34, PPC, at P.S. Machni Gate, Peshawar.
2. As per prosecution case, complainant Nasir Khan along with his father Hasham Khan and cousin Saadat were going to their home in a Datsun after attending hearing in the Court and when they reached to the spot, there petitioner alongwith co-accused Wahid, Shahid & Jamal duly armed with fire-arms were present who stopped the datsun and deboarded Hasham Khan forcibly and all the accused made indiscriminate firing at him as a result of which he was hit and died on the spot.
Consequently on the basis of his report instant FIR was registered against the petitioner and co- accused.
' Arguments heard record perused.
3. Perusal of record reveals that four persons including the petitioner have been charged for indiscriminate firing at the deceased but no specific role has been assigned to any of the accused as to with whose fire shots the deceased was hit and died, as according to Post Mortem report, the deceased has received two fire-arm entry wound which is supported by two empties recovered from the spot whereas for the said two injuries four persons have been charged which makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry u/S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
4. As per site-plan, the distance between accused and that of deceased has been mentioned to be two paces but there is no mention of any charring or tattooing marks on the body of deceased nor any dragging' marks, have been mentioned in the medical report of the deceased creating doubt in the prosecution case.
5. It is also pertinent to mention that besides petitioner, three other persons having similar role of indiscriminate firing were also charged, out of whom Wahid and Shahid co-accused have been acquitted by the trial Court vide order dated 10.05.2014. The case of petitioner has to be seen by trial Court in the light of evidence however the tentative assessment of the matter at this juncture makes the case of petitioner that of further inquiry u/S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.
6. So far as abscondence of petitioner is concerned, mere abscosion is not a conclusive proof of guilt of accused person. It is only a suspicious circumstance against an accused that he was found guilty of the offence. However, suspicions after all are suspicions. The same cannot take the place of proof. The value of abscondence, therefore, depends on the facts of each case. The absconsion of the accused may be consistent with the guilt or innocence of the accused, which is to be decided keeping in view over all facts of the case. Mere abscondence of accused could not be made the basis for his conviction as accused could run away due to fear or suspicious circumstances. No doubt, abscondence is a relevant fact, but it can be used as a corroborative piece of evidence, which cannot be read in isolation but has to be read along with substantive piece of evidence. Reliance 'laced on case titled "Rohtas Khan vs. The State" (2010 SCM R 566), ahimullah Jan vs. Kashif and another" (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 298). The petitioner despite remaining in police custody has made no confession before the competent Court nor any weapon of offence has been recovered from his possession or at his instance and pointation. He is behind the bar since his arrest and no more required to the local police for furthet investigation therefore keeping him behind the bar would serve no useful.
7. In view of what has been observed above, this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond to the tune of Rs, 3,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means.