ZAHEER-UD-DIN KAKAR, J.---Through this application filed under sectio n 497, Cr.P.C, the applicant seeks grant of post-arrest bail in case FIR No.14 of 2009 dated 14.09.2009 for offences under sections 302, 34, P.P.C. registered at Levies Thana, Dalbandin.
2. Facts of the case need not to be reitera ted as the same have been stated in the memo of application as well as in the impugned order .
3. Plea of post-arrest bail of the applican t did not find favour with the Additional Sessions Judge, Dalbandin, who dismissed the same vide order dated 13.05.2020.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant while arguing the matter mostly relied on the points raised in the application, whereas the learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the application.
5: I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record. It is an established principle of law that only tentative assess-ment of facts is required while disposing of the ancillary matters like bail etc. Applying the above principle, a tentative assessment of the record reveals that the occurrence was unseen. The applicant is not nominated in the FIR rather he was arrested on the basis of supplementary statement of complainant recorded after nine days of lodging of FIR, thus, the possibility of deliberations and consultations cannot be ruled out. The only piece of evidence against the applicant is his disclos ure, which is prima facie has not been corroborated by any other piece of evidence, as such, the evidentiary of the same would be determined by the trial Court during trial. In this backdrop, the case of the applicant becomes one of further inquiry .
It is settled law 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 not by way of grace or concession. A reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others PLD 1985 SC 182, Qamar alias Mitho v. The State and others PLD 2012 SC 222 and Ehsanullah v . The State 2012 SCMR 1 137.
Besides, co-accused Abdul Majeed and Haji Shah Jehan have been acquitted of the, charge by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dalbandin vide order dated 22.01.2010 by accepting application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. The Court, while considering the applicant's plea of bail, could not ignore the acquittal of co-accused viz a viz the merits of his case. In the case of Jam Sadiq Ali v. State (1989 PCr.LJ 1910) even bail before arrest of the accused was confirmed on the sole B ground that his co-accused in murder charge was acquitte d. In case of Nawab Ali v. State 2003 YLR 113 has observed that the case of 'accused was identical to the case of co-accused, who had been acquitted on similar charge and his abscondance could not be treated as a bar to his release on bail.
6. As far as, the contention of the learned State Counsel that the applicant remained fugitive from law for about ten years, therefore, he is not entitled for concession of bail. I do not agree with the contention of learned State Counsel for the reasons that it is settled principle that the abscondance of an accus ed could not be treated as a bar to his release on bail. The rule that fugitive from law shall under no circumstances be enlarged on bail is not absolute if the case of an accused is otherwise found fit for bail on merit and that bail cannot be refused if he had remained an absconder . In this regard, reference can be made to the case State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan 1991 SCMR 322 and Mithu Pitafi v . The State 2009 SCMR 299 .
7. For the above reasons, the application is allowed and the applicant Faqir Dad son of Suleman is admitted to post-arrest bail in case FIR No.14 of 2009 14.09.2009, registered at Levies Thana, Dalbandin, District Chaghi, subject to his furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Rupees three hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court or the trial Court.
The observations made herein above are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either party before the trial Court.