1. ' This bail application has been filed on behalf of one Azhar Ali Shah who is facing trial for the murder of his own father Iqtedar Ali Shah. Although there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with corn-mission of the offence, the prosecution have relied upon certain circumstances which find corroboration from confession of co-accused and also absconsion of the petitioner.
2. ' Mr. Sharifuddin Ada appearing for the petitioner submitted that the witnesses have been set up against the petitioner by some local Zamindars who have engineered a false case against him. He further stated that none of the witnesses has claimed to have witnessed the murder. The evidence of the witnesses deposing against the petitioner is inconsistent and self-contradictory and hence unreliable. As for confession of co-accused, his contention was that conviction cannot be based on such evidence nor can it be regarded as the source of proving effective corroboration to the case.
3. According to learned counsel the deceased had great affection for the petitioner so much so that he was called from abroad and made to put up with him at his lands.
4. ' On the other hand the learned State counsel Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi and Mr. Shaikh Ayaz appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the application vehemently. Their argument was that strong circumstantial evidence coupled with judicial confession of co-accused and absconsion of the petitioner for a long time make out a prima facie case against the petitioner.
5. ' The trial of the petitioner is yet to commence. For the present there is nothing to show that the witnesses who have given statement against him are set dp witnesses or have in any way falsely implicated him. According to their evidence the petitioner was living with the deceased in the Kot at the latter's land. On 15th December, 1979 they are stated to have learnt from the petitioner that the deceased had left for Nawabshah and he himself was going to Faisalabad. The petitioner is further said to have told the witnesses that his deceased father had given him a cheque for Rs, 15,000 for defraying his personal expenses. However, after verification it was found that the deceased had never gone to Nawabshah and the statement of the petitioner in this regard turned out to be false.
6. Besides above it is in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that blood drops were seen outside the house where deceased was living and when the petitioner was asked about the presence of the blood drops he showed some hesitation and could not give satisfactory explanation. There is further circumstance to the effect that complainant who happens to be the petitioner's own brother has stated in his report that there used to be frequent quarrels between the father (deceased) and the son (petitioner) because the latter pressed the former for transfer of the lands to him. It is quite understandable that unless complainant had strong motive, he was not expected to involve his brother in false murder case. The petitioner has not alleged that the complainant bore any against him.
7. ' Since it is not denied that the petitioner was residing with the deceased at the time immediately preceding the latter's murder, he was expected to help search for the assassins of his father and be available at verdant. But he instead disappeared and was untraceable. He remained at large for nearly six months and reappeared on after his passport was cancelled and warrant of his arrest was issued. In PLD 1966 (W. P.) Pesh. 232, it was held that prolonged absconsion of the accused was held to be pointer of his guilt.
8. The other piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is judicial,D confession of co-accused Lutuf Ali. Of course such evidence cannot form sole basis for conviction as has been held in PLD 1960 SC (Pak.), 387 nevertheless it does lend support to other evidence. Since the prosecution have not sought to base the conviction of the petitioner only on the evidence of confession of co- accused, the authorities cited on this point will be of no help to the petitioner.
9. ' All the material referred to above pieced together clearly makes out a prima facie case against the petitioner who is therefore not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.