1. ' Applicant Anwar son of Yaqoob Malik is facing trial in the Court of learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Sessions Case No,92 of 1994 of Police Station New Foujdari Shikarpur.
2. ' Allegation against the present applicant is that he alongwith co-accused namely Muhammad Sallah, (2) Faiz Muhammad, (3) Momin, (4) Muhammad Pannah and (5) Mir Muhammad in furtherance of their common intention entered in the house of complainant Abdul Karim at about 11-30 a.m. On 23-6-1994 and caused murder of Mst. Salehan wife of complainant on the ground that hand of Mst. Ghulam Sarwar, who was sister of the complainant, was given by complainant to one Muhammad Bachal Mahar who belonged to different caste at the instance of his wife Mst.
3. Salehan. The specific allegation against present applicant is that he was armed with a hatchet and caused hatchet blows to Mst. Salehan due to which fingers of her left hand were cut, whereas co- accused Muhammad Sallah caused hatchet injuries on various other parts of the body of Mst.
4. Salehan. The case proceeded against co-accused Muhammad Pannah and Faiz Muhammad who were arrested by the police whereas the remaining accused named in the F.I.R. Including the present applicant were declared absconders. On 21-7-1999 Muhammad Pannah and Faiz Muhammad were convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The applicant was arrested on 29-9-2000. An application for bail was filed before the learned trial Court which was rejected on 15-10-2001 now the applicant has approached this Court.
5. ' It has been argued by Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarani, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity over matrimonial affairs. There are general allegations against the applicant and fatal injuries are not attributed to him as is evident from the post-mortem notes. So far absconsion is concerned, it is alleged that the applicant was all along present in his house and performing routine work. He was unaware of his involvement in the said case till he was arrested. It was further argued that co- accused Momin who was also declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court has been granted bail by a learned single Judge of this Court as such in view of the principle of rule of consistency as well the present applicant also deserves same treatment.
6. ' Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing on behalf of State, has vehemently opposed this bail application and argued that the F.I.R. Was lodged within an hour of the incident which took place during the daytime. Complainant and the accused are closely related hence there is no chance of any confusion in the identity of the accused. Motive is there and active participation of the applicant in the commission of the offence by causing injuries to deceased Mst. Salehan shows that he was sharing common intention. It has further been argued that the applicant remained fugitive from law for about six years and as such he has lost some normal rights available to an accused.
7. ' I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and learned Assistant Advocate-General Mr. Saeed Ahmed Bijarani. In support of his plea for bail has placed reliance on the case of (1) Jamshed Ali v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 130, (2) Mumtaz Hussain and 5 others v. The State 1996 SCM R 1125 and (3) Muhammad Nawaz v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 184. All the authorities cited by the learned counsel are distinguishable on law as well as on facts. In the case of Jamshed Ali v. The State (supra) there was allegation of conspiracy against the accused and he was declared innocent in the case by the police. In the case of Mumtaz and 5 others v. The State (supra) the allegation against the accused was that despite being allegedly armed with deadly weapons like rifle, gun and hatchets, they had only caused simple blunt injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses by using the wrong side of their weapons. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (supra) bail was granted to the accused as the ocular account was in conflict with the medical evidence whereas in the instant case the allegation against the applicant is fully corroborated by the medical evidence.
8. As a result of the tentative assessm ent of the material available on record, I find that applicant is not entitled for grant of bail on various counts. Firstly he alongwith his co-accused duly armed entered in the house of complainant and actively participated in the commission of the offence which resulted in the death of Mst. Salehan. Secondly he remained fugitive from law for about 6 years though he is closely related to the complainant and other co-accused as such it cannot be believed by a man of ordinary prudence that he was unaware of the fact that he is required in this case. The principle of rule of consistency also does not stand attracted under the circumstances of the case as co-accused Momin was neither armed with any weapon nor he is alleged to have caused any injury to the deceased. Thus, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant in support of this bail application.
9. ' By a. Short order, dated 6-5-2001 I had dismissed this bail application and above are the reasons for the same.