ORDER
(1) Bail has been sought in Crime No,75/96 registered with Police Station Orangi under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The prosecution case, in nutshell is that one Muhammad' Khursheed lodged F.I.R. With Orangi Police Station on 20-4-2000 stating therein that on 17-4-1996 at about 11-30 a.m three boys duly armed entered in his house and by show of force tookaway gold ornaments, one camera, cash about Rs,1,84,900 and some Pounds and Riyals. He further stated that while the culprits were leaving he peeped through the door and saw that they were talking to one Tanveer who is resident of the same neigbourhood.
3. It is stated that the applicant was declared as absconder and was subsequently arrested on 16- 9-2000.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no allegations against the applicant that he participated in the commission of the alleged crime and that the only allegation against him is that he was seen talking to the actual culprits when after commission of offence they were leaving. He submits that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely involved in this case by the police and this plea gets the support from the manner in which his name has been introduced as an accused. Learned counsel elaborated that initially in the interim challan one Tanveer without mentioning his father's name was shown as an accused and then in the final challan one Tanveer Ahmed son of Shabbir Ahmed has been mentioned though the correct name of the applicant is Tanveer Hussain son of Shabbir Husssain. His other contention is that the applicant was totally unaware of the pendency of any case against him, therefore, it was not possible for him to join trial. In his arguments he disclosed that co-accused Sohail and other were declared as absconders by one and the same order, dated 7-8-1998. He contends that co- accused Sohail has already been granted bail by trial Court. He has produced certified true copy of bail order and a copy of order, dated 7-8-1998. Learned counsel has placed reliance on case-law reported in PLD 1985 SC 182 and PLD 1995 SC 34.
5. Learned State Counsel has recorded his no objection at the very outset stating that on the principle of rule of consistency the applicant is entitled to the grant of the bail.
6. Learned Stated Counsel has not controverted the contention of the applicant. F.I.R. Shows that the complainant had only seen one Tanveer, his neighbour, talking with the accused while they were leaving. No material has been brought to my notice to show that there is any other tangible material except the aforementioned statement in the F.I.R. To connect the applicant in the commission of the crime. In my view the case of the applicant is a matter of further enquiry.
7. In case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others (PLD 1995 SC 182) while referring to the observations made in the case of Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and other (Cr. Appeal No,15-P of 1984), it is laid down as follows: "As for the effect of abscondence, the Court referred to its earlier decision in Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others (Criminal Appeal No,15-P of 1984, decided on 28th November, 1984) in which the law in respect of persons who become fugitive from law was laid down. Herein, it was observed that 'a fugitive from law and Courts loses some of the normat'rights granted by the procedural as also substantive law' and it was added that 'unexplained noticeable abscondence disentitles a person to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case'; and went on to observe that-- 'in some rare cases notwithstanding abscondence the accused might be released on bail; for example; when the accused is a woman, a child or a sick and infirm person or when he otherwise becomes entitled to bail as of right under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And/or the so- called abscondence is satisfactorily explained by the accused so as to establish that in reality it did not amount to abscondence.'
' It is in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the above decisions that the effect of the abscondence by the respondents on their right to obtain bail will fall for consideration."
8. Considering the above facts, circumstances and case-law the applicant is admitted to bail. He shall be released on his furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.