CH. KHALID YOUSAF, J.---The captioned revision petition has been filed against the impugned order passed by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli dated 14.10.2019, whereby the post- arrest bail application of the accused-petitioners was rejected.
The facts briefly stated are that on complaint of Muhammad Arif, complainant a case under sections 324, 341, 337-A, 337/F(i), 147, 148, 149 and 109; A.P.C. was registered against the accused- petitioners and co-accused at Police Station Kotli on 05.03.2012 alleging therein that on 05.03.2012 the complainant Muhammad Arif along with his brother, Ishtiaq and brother-in-law Sabir Hussain were coming home from Sarsawa, when they reached near the shop of one Muhammad Mushtaq son of Reheem Ali, they received an information that some persons from Sudhan family blocked the road and when they were on the way to home, in the meantime the accused-persons attacked upon the complainant party with lethal weapons having common intention. It is further alleged that accused, Naveed armed with Kalashnikov fired at Sabir Hussain which hit him at the back side of his right hand, accused Jaffar also fired with Kalashnikov at the 'abdomen of Sabir Hussain. The other co-accused, armed with Kalashnikov/.12 bore gun also started firing, accused Basharat and Zubair hit stick blows at the head of Sabir Hussain. The accused, Basharat also gave stick blow on the wrist of Sabir's left hand. The occurrence was witnessed by Rizwan, Zaffar and they also rescued the victims. The accused-persons committed this occurrence on the instigation and abetment of Khaliq, Mazhar Masood, Mehboob Khan and Aurangzeb. The injured person Sabir Ilussain was succumbed to injuries and thereafter section 324/A.P.C. was deleted and section 302/A.P.C. was added.
After registration of the case, the accused-petitioners remained absconded for almost seven years and they were apprehended in November 2018. The accused-petitioners applied for post arrest bail before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli on 07.03.2019 whereby the same was rejected on 09.04.2019. Thereafter the accused-petitioners filed revision petition before this court on 30.04.2019, which also met the same fate 21.05.2019. The accused-petitioners again moved post- arrest bail application before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Kotli on 01.08.2019 whereby the same was declined vide its order dated 14.10.2019, hence, this revision petition.
Mirza Abdul Aziz Ratalvi, Advocate, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners contended that the trial Court committed grave error while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel contended that the accused-petitioners and co-accused Baber have been attributed the same role i.e. stick blow on the head of Sabir Hussain, and the deceased and accused Baber has been released on bail therefore, the accused-petitioners are also entitled for the same treatment on basis of rule of consistency. Learned counsel further contended that there are lot of contradictions in the statement of complainant which creates doubt. Learned counsel agitated that the act attributed to accused-petitioners is that they have hit with stick on the head of Sabir Hussain but according to post mortem report the lacerated healed wound and no overt act is attributed to them and they are behind the bars since November 2018. Learned counsel further contended that mere absconsion is no ground for refusing of bail. Finally, he prayed for acceptance of the revision petition. He placed his reliance on the following case law,-
1. 2010 SCJ 504
2. 2004 PCr.LJ 935 While controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners Ch. Muhammad Illyas, Advocate the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the accused- petitioners are attributed specific role and they are nominated in the FIR. Learned counsel stressed that accused-petitioners absconded for long period and no explanation has been given in this regard therefore, they are not entitled for concession of bail on this sole ground. He further contended that some minor discrepancies indicated by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioners relate to deeper appreciation which is not permissible under the law. Learned counsel further contended that it can be ascertained after recording statement of doctor that whether the wound was old one or due to stick blow inflicted by the accused-petitioners. He further averred that in previous round all these grounds have agitated and learned counsel for the accused- petitioner is miserably failed to bring on record any fresh ground. He further contended that the case of the accused-petitioners comes in the ambit of Prohibitory Clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. as such the learned subordinate Court rightly refused the bail. The learned counsel defended for complainant the impugned order on all counts and prayed for dismissal of the captioned revision petition. Learned counsel placed his reliance on the following case law,-
1. 2004 PCr. L J 964
4. 2012 PCr. L J 625 Ejaz Ahmed Bhatti, learned. AAG appearing on behalf of the State fully owned the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant-respondent and contended accused- petitioners are not entitled for any, concession of bail and subordinate court has rightly rejected the bail application.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as learned AAG and gone through the record of the case with utmost care.
So far as the contention of the learned counsel for accused-petitioners that according to rule of consistency the accused-petitioners are entitled for bail; is concerned. Perusal of record reveals that role of Accused-petitioners is specifically mentioned in the FIR whereas no such allegation is attributed to the accused Baber whose bail was granted on 03.11.2012 whereas the accused- petitioners remained absconded for almost 7 years and their role is specifically mentioned in the FIR and injuries attributed to them have been corroborated by the post mortem report therefore; rule of consistency is not applicable in the instant case.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the previous round the bail was declined to the accused- petitioners by this court on 21.05.2019 and law is settled on the point that the points raised and decided by the court in a previous round cannot be re-examined.
The learned counsel for accused-petitioners emphasized on the points which are already agitated and resolved by this court in previous round. So it is not open for this court to grant bail on the same grounds on which the bail was declined by this court in previous round. The contention of the learned counsel for accused-petitioners that after refusal of the bail in first round the statement of the complainant has got recorded by trial court and there are lot of contradictions in the said statement which creates doubts and law is well settled that benefit of slightest doubt arises in the prosecution case goes in favour of the accused person.
Contemplate perusal of the statement of the complainant transpires that accused-petitioners are prima facie connected with the alleged offences. Moreover the contradictions indicated by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners relate to a deeper appreciation of evidence which is not permissible under law at this stage.
It is pertinent to mention here that although the mere absconsion of accused-petitioners is not sole ground for decline of bail but at the same time it is duty of the court to see the absconsion and entire circumstances of the case. The instant case has been registered against the accused- petitioners on 15.03.2012 and accused-petitioners were apprehended by the police in November, 2018. They remained absconded for seven years and learned counsel for the accused-petitioners miserably failed to explain such a long absconsion of the accused-petitioners therefore, concession of bail cannot be given to them. My this view finds support from case law reported as "Abdul Lateef v. Safarish Ali Khan" (2004 PCr.LJ 964), the relevant portion is usefully reproduced as under; "Apart the other grounds mentioned above, the accused-appellant is also not entitled for his release on bail for the reason that he has been absconded for a party long time. An offender who after committing the offence remains absconded is normally deprived of all the legal facilities including his release on bail."
In another case law reported as "Muhammad Younis and another v. State and another" (2004 YLR 1920) the relevant portion is usefully reproduced as under ;- "This court after discussion law laid down by the Superior Courts in a case reported as Alam Zaib v. Haji Muhammad Ramzan and another 2000 MLD 1718 has laid down that bail after arrest or pre- arrest can be refused to an accused-person who was guilty of absconsion."
After perusal of FIR, statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C., medical report and other material collected by the investigating agency and tentative assessment of statement of complainant recorded by the trial court I am of the view that the accused-petitioners prima facie connected with the commission of alleged offences. So, in such state affairs I am of the view that they are not entitled for concession of bail therefore, trial Court did not commit any error while refusing bail to them which does not call for any interference by this Court.
The case law referred by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners is not applicable due to its distinguishable facts and circumstances.
In the light of what has been discussed above, finding no force in this revision petition, same is hereby dismissed.