1. ' The applicant is facing trial under section 302/34, P.P.C. In Crime No,35 of 1989 registered with the Police Station Hatri District Hyderabad. The applicant is to be said to be involved along with other co-accused in the murder of deceased Mehboob Ali. According to the F.I.R. The incident took place at about 5-30 p.m. On 15-3-1989 when four persons including the present applicant were seen to be running away from the place of wardat. In the F.I.R. It is stated by the complainant that he was informed by P.W. Khadim Hussain that he has seen and identified the culprits and it was P.W.
2. Khadim Hussain who had seen the present applicant at the scene of incident. It was further alleged that co-accused Saleem had shot fire by which deceased Mehboob All was killed and the names of other accused appearing in the F.I.R. Were Riaz, Mir Saeed and the present applicant. The case was sent up for trial but the accused could not be arrested, therefore, he was shown as absconder.
3. It appears that subsequently the applicant was arrested on 23-5-1999 in Crime No,55 of 1999 Police Station Market under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance and was apprehended in this case also; till then he remained at large.
4. ' Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that there is no evidence against the applicant, co-accused against whom the fire has been alleged has already been granted bail by this Court and other accused persons are also on bail. He further submits that the present applicant was arrested on 23-5-1999. Since then he is in custody. He, therefore, urges that he may be enlarged on bail.
5. ' Learned State counsel has conceded to the grant of bail to the accused/applicant.
6. ' I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the police papers.
7. It is an admitted position that the incident took place on 15-3-1989 but since the accused went in hiding as such could not be arrested. Finally the accused was arrested by Police Station Market on 23-5-1999 and one unlicensed T.T. Pistol along with magazine and 4 live bullets were recovered from his possession and such F.I.R. Being Crime No,55 of 1999 under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance was registered against him at Police Station Market. No doubt co-accused Salim and Riaz against whom similar allegations are levelled were granted bail by this Court, therefore, the rule of consistency demands that on merits the present applicant should also be granted bail. However; since he absconded it is to be seen whether rule of consistency will be applicable. When confronted with the question of the abscondence of the accused for such a long period of 10 years learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since the full name of applicant is Mehboob Iqbal and he is by Caste Arain but since the name of Mehboob Gujar appeared in the F.I.R., therefore, neither the police made attempts to arrest him nor he came to know about his involvement in the above crime. I am afraid this contention of the learned counsel is devoid of force. The name of the applicant appears in the F.I.R. And since he was known to the prosecution witness Khadim Hussain who specifically mentioned that applicant and two others were students of Government College, therefore, there is no question of lack of knowledge so far as the registration of case against the applicant is concerned. The fact that the accused was arrested while in possession of unlicenced T.T. Pistol by itself prima facie, show that the applicant was not a law abiding citizen.
8. ' The of the learned trial Court shows that after grant of bail co-accused have also absconded and they have been declared as proclaimed offenders. This can be the reason that the trial has not been concluded despite the lapse of 11 years.
9. Be that as it may, it is an admitted position that the applicant remained fugitive from law for not less than a period of 10 years and it is a settled law that:-- "Fugitive from law and Courts looses some of the normal rights granted by the procedural as well as substantive law."
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court while discussing the case of Awal Gul v. Zanwar Khan and others reported in PLD 1985 SC 402 further observed and added "unexplained noticeable abscondence disentitles a person to the concession of bail".
11. ' The similar view was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Ali alias Sheri v.
12. The State reported in 1998 SCMR 90.
13. ' In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court I feel that the applicant has failed to explain such inordinate period of abscondence which is spread over 10 years and as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail. Accordingly this application is dismissed.
14. Bail application-dismissed.