1. Granted but subject to all just exceptions.
2. The facts leading to present application for bail are that applicants Ghulam Mustafa and Rab Nawaz are facing trial before the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No,505 of 1997 under section 302, P.P.C. It arose out of F.I.R. No,45 of 1997 Police Station Hatri, District Hyderabad.
1. The brief facts of the prosecution case as disclosed in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Abdul Rasheed on 25-6-1997, are reproduced herein "Complaint is that I am residing at the abovementioned address and is working as Clerk in the Irrigation Department, Muhammad Urs son of Saifal, Khalid son of Saifal are my relatives, who are also residing in the same village. I, after completing my duties was returning to my house when my son Imdad Ali alongwith Muhammad Urs and Khalid were standing by the side of my house near water supply office. In the meanwhile accused Gulan Chang, armed with DBBL gun, Ghulam Mustafa armed with country-made pistol, and Rab Nawaz armed with country-made pistol and Mir Hassan armed with SBBL gun came and started firing upon the abovesaid persons with intention to kill them. On receiving fire-arm injuries my son Imdad Ali died on the spot. Muhammad Urs and Khalid on receiving the fire-arm injuries fell down on the ground. In the meanwhile Chakar Ali and Inayat with the help of villagers took deceased Imdad Ali and injured Muhammad Urs and Khalid in the vehicle to Civil Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. After leaving the dead body of the deceased Imdad Ali in mortuary of Civil Hospital, and P.Ws. I have come for report. The abovenamed accused persons due to old enmity, with intention of killing have fired upon my son and P.Ws. And have murdered my son Imdad Ali and have caused injuries to Muhammad Urs and Khalid Hussain. The report is lodged. Investigation may be made."
2. After usual investigation applicant/accused alongwith co-accused were sent up to stand trial.
3. The applicants/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but it was declined by impugned order, dated 4-1-2000.
4. I have heard Mr. Ahmed Ali Shaikh, learned Advocate for the applicants/accused and Mr. Agha Khuda Bux learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State. I have also perused the material placed on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The perusal of the record shows that both the applicants/accused duly armed with country-made pistols fired, with the result one Imdad Ali received fatal injuries and he died on the spot, whereas two persons Khalid Hussain and Muhammad Urs received fire-arm injuries. The name of the applicants/accused are mentioned in the F.I.R., as the parties were already known to each other.
6. The record shows that during the course of investigation, police was not able to lay hands on the applicants/accused and, therefore, in their absentia, they were sent up to stand trial. On 27-5-1998 applicants/accused surrendered before the trial Court and applied for bail before arrest, but their bail plea was refused and they were taken into custody by the trial Court and were remanded to jail. It is well-settled that any person who thwarts the investigation and is fugitive from the law and Courts lose some of the normal rights granted by the procedural as well as substantive law. In this context I am fortified by the decision of apex Court in the case of Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others reported in PLD 1985 SC 402 and also. Sher Ali alias Sheri v. The State 1998 SCM R 190.
7. The learned counsel for applicants/accused argues that one eyewitness Inayat Hussain filed affidavit before this Court in support of the bail plea of applicant/accused, wherein he has exonerated the applicants/accused from the culpability of the charge; that the ocular and medical evidence is inconsistent; that there was another F.I.R. Against the present applicants/ accused and co-accused, wherein many persons were involved by the complainant party; that the F.I.R. Was belated by four hours, therefore, the applicants/accused are entitled to bail.
8. The contentions raised by the learned counsel are misconceived as the same amounts to deeper evaluation/assessm ent of evidence. It is well-settled that for the purpose of grant or refusal of bail only tentative assessm ent is to be made and deeper appreciation is not warranted by law Delay in F.I.R. Is per se no ground for the grant of bail.
9. Looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am of the considered view that the bail application merits no consideration. Consequently, it stands dismissed.
10. The observations made hereinabove are of tentative nature and the trial Court may not be influenced while deciding the case upon the evidence brought on the record.