' Mansab Khan, petitioner along with others was reported against vide F.I.R. No,232 of 1987 under sections 302/307/148 and 149, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Rajana, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. According to F.I.R.. The petitioner armed with rifle along with his co- accused fired at Muhammad Ali which hit on his belly.
3. In support of the petition, learned counsel argued that the role attributed to the petitioner is contradicted by post-mortem report; the complainant party has been found aggressor and a case under section 302/307, P.P.C. Also stands registered; all the co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail and that mere ascendance on the part of the petitioner is no ground for the grant of bail.
' In support of his submission, he relied on PLD 1976 Supreme Court 283 and 1991 SCM R 322.
4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted that the F.I.R.
With a specific role of firing to the deceased was registered on 4-8-1987 while he was arrested on 30-5-1994 after a lapse of more than six years. He further submitted that challah has been submitted in Court and as such at this stage, petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the police record with their assistance.
6. The plea that the F.I.R. Is contradicted by the post-mortem report cannot be gone into at this stage specially when the challan has been submitted and trial is to commence. It is well-settled principle of law that ipse dixit of the police is not binding upon the Courts. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the law laid down in the case of The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan 1991 SCM R 322 bail cannot be refused merely on the basis of ascendance. A perusal of the judgment referred to supra shows that their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that rule is not absolute that a fugitive from law should under no circumstances be enlarged on bail, although ascendance does constitute a relevant factor when examining question of bail. The question of ascendance came under consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others v. The State and others 1992 SCM R 1983 and the learned Judges were pleased to hold as under:-- "Furthermore, a distinction is to be drawn between a case in which an accused person immediately after the commission of the offence absconds and a case in which he absconds at the stage of arguments in the trial Court. The former having close proximity with the commission of the offence would carry more evidentiary value as compared to the latter."
It is an admitted fact in hand that the petitioner absconded from the very initial stage and was arrested after more than six years. So the case of the petitioner is covered by the law laid down in Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob's case (supra).
' The petitioner is real brother of Afzal, Liaqat and Ayub sons of Allah Yar, therefore, his case is also covered by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Hussain alias Muhammada v. The State and another 1994 SCM R 999 wherein their Lordships were pleased to hold as under:-- "The fact that the petitioner did not surrender though his close associates were charged for the crime along with him and he was in the know of allegations against him, justified the High Court, without technical satisfaction of the requirements of a proclamation, to consider him a proclaimed offender for the purpose of and in the matter of bail."
In view of what has been discussed above and the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favor of the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.