1. ' This is an application for bail before arrest in a case registered under section 302/34, P.P.C. On 16- 11-1983 at 9-30 p.m. At Police Station, S.I. T E . , Karachi.
2. ' Facts of the prosecution case briefly stated are that on 16-11-1983 at 9-00 p.m. When Ayoob Khan, driver of Wagon No,836-949, reached at bus-stop at Piracha Chowrangi, and passengers were boarding there appeared a Blue colour Toyota car in which Gul lmran, Mohabbat Khan, lnayat Mir and Hasham Ali Khan were sitting. It is stated that Hasham Khan fired a pistol shot at Ayoob Khan and car drove away. Ayoob Khan died on the spot. Zar Muhammad, Conductor of Wagon, went and lodged report. This incident was witnessed by lnayat Ali, Abdul Mannan and others who indentified the accused/applicants.' Applicants Inayat Mir and Mohabat Khan are present in Court.
3. Their bail plea has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi, on 23-9-1984.
4. ' Mr. Lqbal Quadri, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, has argued that no overt act has been attributed to the present applicants and complainant has sworn an affidavit in which he has stated that names of applicants were given by brother of deceased under suspicion. Lie has referred a case reported in PLD 1974 Lah.
5. 493.
6. ' Mr. Said A. Shaikh, learned Advocate-General, opposes the above application and stated that applicants have been named in F.I.R. They were with Hasham Khan, therefore, they have a common intention to murder Ayoob Khan, the provisions of section 34, P.P.C. Attract to the present case. It has also been pointed out that applicants were absconding after the incident. He has cited a case reported in PLD 1983 SC 82 and a case of Muhammad Safdar v. The State 1983 SCMR 645.
7. In the present case the names of both the accused/applicants have specifically been mentioned in the F.I.R. P.Ws. Inayat Ali, Abdul Mannan, Gui Muhammad and Shahzad have supported the prosecution case. In a case of Muhammad Aslam v. The State PLD 1974 Lah. 493 relied upon by the learned counsel, it has been held that bail before arrest could be granted in rases of probably on false involvement likely to result any irreparable injuries to dignity, respect and reputation of the accused. Principles laid down by the Supreme Court for grant of bail before arrest are that it would only be allowed when it is shown that accused apprehends arrest due to some ulterior motive on the part of the authorities and other influential person or there are some peculiar features of the case which could justify the exercise of discretionary power by the High Court or Sessions Court.
8. The case law for bail before arrest has been fully discussed in the case of Murad Khan v. Fazal-e- Subhan and others PLD 1983 SC 82.
9. ' So far the next ground of Mr. Lqbal Quadri is concerned that complainant has sworn an affidavit also cannot be considered. On this point I refer a case reported in 1982 SCMR 15 where it has been held that even the affidavit of one witness (complainant) was not produced, the bail was refused.
10. In this case there are other eyewitnesses also. They have implicated the applicants. No mala fide has been shown by the applicants. Furthermore, they have absconded for about 10 months. This is riot a fit case for grant of bail before arrest. Therefore, application is dismissed.
11. Bail declined.