1. ' The present bail application has been moved on behalf of applicant Gohram who is facing trial under sections 307, 302, 149 P.P.C. And section 13D Arms Ordinance registered with Tangwani Police Station as Crime No, 139/1985.
2. ' 'Briefly the facts are that on 22-10-1985 one Dost Ali Sabzoi registered the said F.I.R. With the police to the effect that about one year earlier the deceased Karam Ali had sold one bullock to co- accused Jaffar for a sum of Rs,4,000 but the amount was not paid to him and on the date of incident the complainant party had gone to ask for money from the co-accused Jaffar on which the parties exchanged hot words. The complainant party then started coming towards their house and when they were on way they saw that from out of one water-course came out the accused Jaffar, Gohram, Nawab all armed with guns and Rahim Bux and Isa armed with lathis. Co-accused Jaffar challenged the complainant party and fired at deceased Karam Ali which hit him and thereafter the present applicant and Nawab are also said to have fired at the deceased which also are said to have hit him and the deceased fell down. The accused party then fired at the P.Ws but the same did not find the target. The complainant party raised cries whereupon the accused ran away. Deceased Karam Ali ultimately died. The police after usual investigation arrested co- accused also and challaned the case. The present applicant is said to have absconded away but was subsequently arrested on 15-10-1989 as per Mashirnama prepared by the police. An application for bail was moved before the trial Court which was rejected and, therefore, the present bail application.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Awan Rehmatullah Nadeem, the learned counsel for the applicant. He has submitted that there is inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. According to the learned counsel the complainant in the F.I.R. Has stated that the accused Jaffar, Nawab and present applicant had fired directly at the deceased and from this it can be inferred that they had fired at the deceased at his front side but the post-mortem report shows that he has sustained the fire arm injuries which are wounds of entrance of the right back of the chest. The learned counsel has further submitted that post-mortem report shows that deceased had also suffered three of the injuries said to have been caused by hard blunt substance. In view of the above statement the learned counsel has submitted that the case of the present applicant calls for further enquiry and he would be entitled to grant of bail. He has placed reliance on the case-law.
4. ' Mr. Muhammad Siddiq Kharal, the learned Addl. A.-G. Has vehemently opposed the bail application. He has submitted that the present applicant has been named in the F.I.R. And specific role has been attributed to him. He has further submitted that F.I.R. Is lodged promptly and gives an honest account of the incident. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the case has proceeded before the trial Court and as disclosed in the order of the trial Court it appears that two eye-witnesses who have been examined, namely, Saeed Khan and Nazar Muhammad have implicated the present applicant. Lastly the learned Addl. A.-G. Has submitted that the present applicant had remained absconding for a period of 4 years till he was arrested by the police and no explanation for his abscission has been offered.
5. ' I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for applicant and the learned Addl.A.-G.
6. It may be pertinent to observe that the F.I.R. Shows that while complainant party was going, there came the accused party from out of a water-course but it nowhere shows that the accused party had fired at the complainant party from front side. With regard to other submission of the learned counsel that there are injuries sustained by the deceased which are certified to have been caused by hard blunt weapon, a reference may be had to the mashirnama of vardat which shows that there was a piece of lathi recovered from the vardat which was blood-stained and is said to have been broken during the fight. This mashirnama is prepared on 23-10-1985 at 6-30 a.m. While the F.I.R. Was lodged on the preceding night at 7-00 p.m. This fact goes to suggest that the lathis were also used in the fight and the possibility of deceased having sustained lathi blows cannot be ruled out at this stage. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicant, with all respects, would not be applicable to the present case. The first case cited by the learned counsel is that of Mullan v. State 1984 P Cr. L J 1407. In this case the deceased had suffered five blunt and hard substance injuries although there was no allegation in the F.I.R. That some of the accused were armed with lathis while in the present case there is specific allegation that two of the accused were armed with lathis also. The other case cited by the learned counsel is Sultan Mahmood v. State KLR 1986 Notes 22. This is a note and no facts of the case have been mentioned therein. However, this note shows that the allegation was that the petitioner had fired at the chest of the deceased whereas according to medical evidence the injury sustained by the deceased was on the back of his right shoulder. In the present case there is no such specific mention in the F.I.R. That the injuries were caused on the chest of the deceased. The learned counsel has then cited the case of Muhammad Hanif v. Manzoor and 2 others 1982 SCMR 153 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that Court is not to enter upon a detailed appreciation and examination of evidence but has to look at material available when the bail is applied for. Keeping this principle in mind I have referred to the mashirnama of vardat and the facts mentioned above go to corroborate the medical evidence with regard to causing of the hard blunt weapon injuries to the deceased as a broken bloodstained lathi has been recovered from the vardat.
7. With regard to abscission of the applicant, the learned counsel has placed reliance on an order passed by this Court in Cr. BA, No, 547/89, Amanullah v. State wherein it has been held that mere absconsion will not come in way of applicant for grant of bail if otherwise his case falls within the category which requires further enquiry. There is no cavil about this legal proposition but as discussed above it appears that the present applicant had fired at the deceased, empty cartridges have been recovered from the place of Vardat and the witnesses examined in trial Court have implicated the present applicant. This appears to be sufficient material to prima facie connect the present applicant with the commission of the alleged offence. In these circumstances I decline to grant bail to the applicants. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.