' Involved in a case under sections 302/324/216/148/149/34, P.P.C. Read with sections 10, 11 and 16 of Ordinance VII of 1979 vide F.I.R. No,228 dated 22-4-1993 of Police Station Nowshera Kalan, the petitioner Nisar Khan having been refused bail by the Courts below, has come up to this Court.
2. In the occurrence one Mst. Hukam Jana was murdered and one Mst. Zar Sanga was abducted.
Though the complainant Mst. Amrood Jana is not an eye-witness yet another Mst. Gohar Taja is an eye-witness who had been examined on the very day of occurrence. She had categorically charged numerous persons given in the F.I.R. Including the present petitioner. It is a case of formation of unlawful assembly apparently for the prosecution of the object whereof numerous persons had assembled together to commit the murder as well as the abduction. The accused- petitioner is prima facie linked with all the offences as alleged by the eye-witness Mst. Gohar Taja which was further confirmed by another eye-witness cum victim of the case Mst. Zarsanga who was recovered on 25-4-1993 and whose statement under section 161, Cr.P.C. Was recorded the same day wherein, she charged all the persons including the petitioner. It is a case of two eye- witnesses, one being a victim herself.
3. No doubt, one Noor Azam, a co-accused, had been acquitted on 13-10-1996 but such acquittal does not benefit the petitioner because the accused aforesaid was neither involved in murder nor in abduction. It was during abduction that for one night the abductee was made to stay in his house and realising the innocence of Noor Azam, the case was withdrawn under section 494, Cr.P.C.
4. The deceased as well as the complainant are the relatives of the present accused and thus, one cannot expect the petitioner's ignorance about the occurrence yet, despite having been charged, the petitioner since 22-4-1993 remained absconder and was arrested on 18-10-2000, almost seven and a half years after the occurrence. He simply cannot explain such prolonged abscondence and hence must lose certain rights as an absconder.
5. All the remaining accused, directly charged in the F.I.R. As well as in the statements of the eye- witnesses are still absconders for the last eight years and hence this matter can also be not ignored. The trial of the accused has already commenced and two witnesses stand already examined even after the charge framed against the petitioner leaving aside the eight witnesses which were examined during the trial of co-accused Rahimzada. This is not a proper stage for the release of the petitioner technically as well as on merits. The application is hereby dismissed.