1. ' This is an application for pre-arrest bail of the applicant Abdul Rauf Sub-Divisional Police Officer in a direct complaint Case No,35 of 1996 registered under sections 302, 307, 398, 499 and 114, P.P.C.
2. Vide order, dated 19-3-1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, pending trial before the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad.
3. ' The allegations against the applicant are that while applicant was S.H.O. At Police Station City Jacobabad, he and the co-accused A.S.-I. Illahi Bux raided the houses of the complainant party on or about 1-2-1996 and fired shots at them and a fire shot by Abdul Rauf, hit deceased Suhrab who fell down and died. Upon protest of the complainant party, the co-accused namely A.S.-I. Illahi Bux and H.C. Muhammad Ali took away double-barrel licensed gun and cartridge of the complainant party.
4. ' As consequence of the registration of the above direct complaint case of murder against the above named three police officials, process of N.B.Ws. Was issued against them.
5. ' The case diary shows that right from 1996 upto date the process of non-bailable warrants could not be served upon the applicant though the same was sent for service on many occasions through the D.I.-G. Police concerned, as S.Ps. Of the district failed to effect such service.
6. ' However, for the first time on 22-11-1999 the applicant filed his bail before arrest application before the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad which was dismissed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. The applicant thereafter, filed a Criminal Revision Application No,95 of 1999 before this Court wherein the applicant was allowed interim pre-arrest bail on 30-11-1999 which revision application was, however, withdrawn on 15-6-2000 vide order of the even date. Present pre-arrest bail application has, however, been filed before this Court on 11-8-2000 after withdrawal of the aforesaid revision application.
7. ' The applicant except for a period of about six months being on interim bail allowed to him during the pendency of the revision application did not attend the trial Court on a single date and remained absconding, also discontinued attending the learned trial Court after withdrawal of his revision application.
8. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there are counter-cases between the parties, N.B.Ws. Were never served upon the applicant and he had no knowledge of registration of the case. He placed reliance upon cases reported as:--
(1) 1984 PCr.LJ 1901, (2) 1986 SCM R 1380 and (3) 1987 PCr.LJ 1336.
9. ' Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail before arrest to the applicant contending that the applicant has been serving in the District of Jacobabad for sufficient time and it was solely due to his position that he avoided and defied to appear before the Court. The counsel contended that the applicant remained away form the Court deliberately for a period of about four years. There is no plausible explanation for non-appearance before Court and there is specific allegation against the applicant of killing the deceased. He relied upon cases reported as:--
(1) PLD 1985 SC 182, (2) PLD 1985 SC 402 and (3) 1998 SCM R 190.
10. The perusal of the record reveals that the process of N.B.Ws. Against the applicant had been repeatedly issued through superior officials including the D.I.-G. Police concerned. The grant of bail before arrest to an accused in a criminal case is a rear arrangement. The applicant has by his conduct proved himself as defiant and contumacious. His duty as compared to an illiterate rustic accused was far more great, towards a Court of law. Such conduct on the part of the applicant certainly cannot be ignored under any law or principle.
11. The case of Muhammad Ramzan v. Zafarullah and another 1986 SCM R 1380 cannot, in my humble view, be made applicable to the present case. The applicant is the main accused in the case of murder. It cannot be visualized that he would be entitled to his post-arrest bail. Being fortified with the dicta laid down in the case viz. Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others PLD 1985 SC 182 and Awal Gul Zawar Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 402. I would dismiss the pre-arrest bail application of the applicant.
12. Pre-arrest .