ORDER AHMAD SAEED AWAN, J.- Mansab Khan, petitioner alongwith others was reported against vide FIR No. 232 of 1987 under sections 302/307/148 and 149, PPC registered with Police Station Rajana District Toba Tek Singh.
2. According to FIR, the petitioner armed with rifle alongwith 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 sections 302/307, PPC also stands registered; all the co-accused of the petitioner have been granted bail and that mere abscondence on the part of the petitioner is no ground for the grant of bail. In support of his submission, he relied on P.L.D. 1976 Supreme Court 283 and 1991 S.C.M.R. 322.
4. Learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted that the FIR 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 challan 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 FIR 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 wcll-section 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 versus Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan (1991 S.C.M.R. 322) bail cannot be refused merely on the basis of the abscondence. 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 abscondence does constitute a relevant factor when examining question of bail. The question of abscondence came under consideration before their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob and others versus The State and others (1992 S.C.M.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 later''.
It is an admitted fact in the case 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 hv the law laid down in Ch. Muhammad Yaqoob's case (supra).
The petitioner is real brother of Af/al, Uaqat and Ayub sons of Allah Yar, therefore, his ease is also covered by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Hussan alias Muhammad Versus The State and another (PW4 S.C M.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 alongwith 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.