' MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioner/accused was booked for the offences under sections 392/34/337(D) and 337(F) vide FIR No.68/14 of Police Station City Gilgit. He knocked the doors of two Courts below i.e. The Court of learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge but remained unsuccessful in obtaining bail, hence being dis-satisfied from the verdicts rendered against him, he has approached this Court for concession of bail.
2. Mr. Burhan Wali the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is not charged in the FIR and after his arrest no identification parade was held to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the statement of injured Altaf Hussain has been recorded with delay and no explanation has been rendered in this respect. As per learned counsel the recoveries are also fake and result of padding which makes the case of petitioner as a case of further inquiry. The petitioner is behind the bars since last over 8 months and there is no substantial progress in the trial which may also be considered a good ground for grant of bail to the petitioner.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Complainant Mr. Muhammad Saleem Advocate and learned Dy. Advocate General Malik Sher Baz very vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the crime was detected through CC TV footage, where a white colour Car bearing registration No. DMR208 was indentified to have been found near the Scene of occurrence which after hectic effort by the I.O. Was ultimately traced and taken into custody. The said car was owned by Mehfuzullah son of Abdul Shukoor. The said driver was associated in the investigation who at the very outset of investigation, disclosed that on the fateful day accused/petitioner Babar, called him and got his car on rent to take his family to district Ghizer. The statement of Faizullah was recovered under section 161, Cr.P.C. The accused/petitioner was not traceable, necessary proclamations under section 204 were issued against the accused/petitioner as he went underground after the occurrence and he was arrested on 31/07/15. They further added that after arrest of the petitioner during investigation he made certain disclosures and some looted ornaments were recovered on his pointation in presence of the marginal witnesses and a black colour Burqa which accused was wearing at the time of occurrence and it was smeared with blood, when the accused stabbed victim Altaf Hussain and later on chemical examiner certified that it was containing human blood.
4. As per stance of learned Dy.A.G and the counsel for the Complainant abundant evidence was available with the prosecution and the petitioner was not entitled for the grant of bail.
5. I heard the arguments of the parties and perused the record. It would be pertinent to mention here that the offence was committed in a well-planned manner as the petitioner and co-accused entered in the jewelry shop duly clad in black Burqa impersonating them as lady customer and after entering the shop they stabbed the salesman Altaf Hussain and after critically injuring him looted the ornaments and fled away. The injured Altaf was then removed to DHQ hospital Gilgit where he remained under treatment. The accused absconded after the occurrence and was arrested on 31.07.2015 and soon after his arrest some of robbed ornaments were recovered on his pointation and these ornaments were identified by the owner in presence of the witnesses, and the learned counsel for the petitioner did not utter a single word about these recovered articles. The main thrust of arguments of the learned counsel was that identification parade was not held to connect the petitioner with the crime. Now there is almost all it is settled law that an absconder loses some of his statutory right granted by procedural as well as substantive law and abscondence weigh very heavily against the accused besides the other merits of the case and is always seen with negative attitude by the Courts, until and unless it is explained, and the Courts are convinced that abscondence was not deliberate and was beyond the capacity of accused to surrender before a Court of law or the investigating agencies, where he was wanted.
6. As well as the evidence of CC TV footage is concerned, after necessary amendment in Qanun-e- Shahadat and by insertion of Article-164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, the evidence collected through modern devices is admissible as a valid piece of evidence. The recovery of incriminating articles on pointation of the accused/petitioner and their later on identification by the owner of the ill-fated shop is also a negative circumstance against the petitioner. There is a prima facie case against the petitioner/accused. Moreover, the case in hand is one of the heinous nature and could be termed as an offence against the society.
7. Grant of bail is discretion but when a case which effects on whole of the society, the discretion is always exercised with caution and restraint as such type of people cannot and should not be let loose on the society to disturb the peace and tranquility of public in general. The petitioner is not entitled for the concession of bail, which is accordingly declined.