1. ' This is an application for bail moved under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. The applicant is facing trial in the Court of Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Khairpur under sections 364, 365, 342, 147, 148, P.P.C. And 13-D, Arms Ordinance.
2. ' The incident took place on 28-12-1985 at 8-15 p.m. The matter was reported to the police on 29-12- 1985 at 3-00 a.m. By complainant Ghulam Rasool. Two persons, namely, Haji Muhammad Usman and Wahid Bux were cited as eye-witneeses of the incident. It is alleged by the prosecution that one Abdul Rasool aged about 15 years was abducted by the accused alongwith 9 other persons.
3. According to the complainant on the day of incident complainant was sitting at the hotel of Master Shahan where P.W. Wahid Bux informed him that 10 armed persons entered into the house of the complainant and they have forcibly abducted his brother, Abdul Rasool and left there one chit for payment of ransom of Rs, 12 lacs. Thereafter, the complainant went to police station Ahmedpur for report. After registering the case, the police started investigation and during the investigation through the efforts of nekmard, as submitted by learned counsel, the abductee Abdul Rasool was released by the abductors. Subsequently, the police submitted interim challan and produced Shahan Shaikh alongwith it. Six other accused were shown as absconders including the one by name Ibrahim son of unknown by caste Kalhoro. The trial Court passed an order under section 512, Cr.P.C. Against the absconders and proceeded with the case against the accused Shahan who was subsequently acquitted after trial.
4. ' Now the police has submitted supplementary challan against the present applicant Ibrahim. An application for bail was filed on his behalf before the trial Court which was rejected by order dated 9-10-1988.
5. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial Court has examined abductee and the complainant but none of them have implicated the applicant. The real culprit who has been named by the abductee as well as complainant was one Sikandar by caste Bhango who was a co- accused in the case, but he has expired. On the other hand, Mr. Korai does not dispute this factual position but he submits that the applicant remained absconder for about three years.
6. The explanation as to the ascendance of the applicant, as submitted by his counsel, is that, in fact the police has named in the interim challan one Ibrahim son of unknown resident of village Kacha but the police has now arrested him after about three years to fill up the gap. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant was all along present at his house in his village. He is a Hari and cultivates the land of a Zamindar, as stated by the counsel during the arguments.
7. ' I do not feel satisfied with the explanation of his ascendance. He is a resident of the same village which has been named in the F.I.R. There is stated no other person by his name in the said village. If the police did not arrest him for 2-1/2 years, there may be some reasons. Possibly well that he may be under the cover of protection of some influential person which is reported to have become a common feature specially in this part of the province these days.
8. ' Learned counsel for the applicant placed his reliance on a case reported as Ibrahim v. Hayat Gul (1985 SCMR 382). This case, as I read it, goes against him. The facts of the cited case are that the appelant (in the Supreme Court) alongwith several others having been charged with distance of murder and attempt to commit murder in a case registered on 23rd July, 1983 absconded for more than a year. The appellant before the Supreme Court, surrendered soon after the acquittal of the co-accused who were tried in his absence. After his arrest a bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge but he refused to grant him bail. However, a learned Single Judge of the High Court after due consideration of the question of abscondence, took note of the fact that the co-accused having already been acquitted on consideration of the prosecution evidence led in the case, the appellant was entitled to bail. He also held that the abscondence of the accused could not be considered as an impediment in this behalf. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the hail was cancelled. The relevant observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reads as under:-- "It may straightaway be remarked that long abscondence would not become irrelevant merely because the co-accused of the accused concerned have, during his abscondence, been acquitted on consideration of the evidence led by the prosecution. The law earlier laid down in respect of persons who become fugitive from law does not leave anything in doubt in this behalf.
9. However, it is correct that in some rare cases notwithstanding abscondence the accused might be released on bail, for example, when the accused is a woman, a child or a sick and infirm person or when he otherwise becomes entitled to bail as of right under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
10. And/or the so-called abscondence is satisfactorily explained by the accused so as to establish that in reality it did not amount to ascendance.
11. ' Learned counsel tried to show that the applicant cannot be found guilty because the witnesses who have appeared against him have not implicated him during trial of the co-accused. In fact, for not naming the accused Shahan by the abductee, P.W.1 Abdul Rasool was declared hostile by the prosecution. It is, however, noticeable the when the above-evidence of the two prosecution)
12. Witnesses witnesses was recorded, the applicant was an absconder. As observed in the above " said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "Suffice it, however, to observe that in so far as the believing or not believing a certain piece of evidence is concerned, the trial Court would be entitled to form its own opinion. Moreover, a possibility of additional evidence examined at the instance of the parties or the Court, at the second trial, and/or the admission by the accused under section 342 during this trial which might furnish corroboratory/confirmatory/additional material can never be excluded on account of any bar by any law or principle. And to say the least the very factum of abscondence would ordinarily be led as additional evidence against the respondent which item would be in addition to the evidence led during the trial of his co-accused and it cannot at all even be urged that evidence of ascendance is not relevant in cases like the present one".
13. ' For the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss this application.