' Applicant Abdul Ghani is facing trial in F.I.R. No,7 of 1991 in an offence under section 17/3, Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 460, 307, 147, 336, 302, 324, P.P.C. And 13-D, Arms Ordinance. The F.I.R. Of the said case was registered on 27-4-1991 at Police Station Raza Goth.
2. The facts unfolded in the F.I.R. Are that complainant Ali Gul alongwith P.Ws. Shafi Muhammad Abdul Razzak and deceased Hadi Bux were grazing their cattles near the village Gahleeias in Keti Shah Forest. When accused Jhando, Bagoo alias Bagh Ali, Mashooq, Malhar, Imamuddin, Azim, Jam, Abdul Sami, Nouroz, Hafiz Suleman, Lakhan, Allah Yar, Mehar, Allandino, Manzoor, Mir Nek Muhammad, Khadim, Ghazi, Abdul Ghani (present applicant) and Moghul came there duly armed with deadly weapons such as kalashnikovs guns and committed Harabah by taking away 9 buffaloes. It is further alleged that accused Mughal challenged the complainant party and fired upon deceased Hadi Bux on the pretext that his son Pirano Mahar was murdered by complainant party and due to fire injuries deceased Hadi Bux died on the spot. It is stated that after completing the investigation the police submitted the challan in the Court of law by showing the accused Khadim Ghazi. Abdul Ghani and Moghul as absconding accused while other accused were arrested. The case was tried by the trial Court and the said accused were acquitted by judgment dated 13-8-1997. The applicant was arrested and supplementary challan was submitted in the Court of law where the bail prayer was moved which was dismissed vide order dated 27-8-2001, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood), Sukkur. The similar bail prayer has been moved before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed a statement dated 27-11-2001 stating thereon that a Faisla was held between Mahars and Jatois communities and the said Faisla was held on 12-5- 1996 by Sardar Khadim Hussain Jatoi, Sardar Ali Gohar Khan Mahar, Sardar Mir Manzoor All Khan Panhwar, Dr. Ibrahim Jatoi, Sardar Rahim Bux Khan Bazdar, Haji Ghous Bux Khan Mahar, Abid Hussain Khan Jatoi, Ghulam All Pasha, Commissioner Sukkur, Sabagho Khan Jatoi, D.C. Sukkur and Nadir Hussain Khoso, S.S.P., Sukkur and in presence of notable of each community and parties were penalized by imposing compensatory cost. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the applicant was arrested on 13-1-2001 and he was not aware of this fact that his name is mentioned as an absconding accused in the charge-sheet. The learned counsel for the applicant/accused has relied upon cases of Baloo alias Piyar Ali v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ Kar.
372, Nasrullah and 2 others v. The State PLD 200 Quetta 72, Ali Nawaz v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1316 and in case of Zulfiqar and others v. The State and 10 others 1996 SCMR 326.
4. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Korai for the State has conceded for grant of bail on the ground that co- accused have been acquitted by the trial Court and the applicant/accused will, also be acquitted after holding the trial. The learned State Counsel further states that by an order dated 18-1-1995 the trial Court has bifurcated the case and proceedings under section 87/88, Cr.P.C. Have been initiated and the applicant/accused was shown proclaimed offender and the absconsion of 10 years has not been explained by the learned counsel during his arguments.
5. I have gone through the material placed on record as well as the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and the State.
6. So far as the ground of absconsion is concerned the F.I.R. Of this case was registered on 27-4- 1991 and the applicant/accused was shown to be armed with gun whereas other accused were shown armed with kalashnikovs and all the accused persons taken away buffaloes forcibly and accused Mughal gave Hakal to the complainant party to commit the murder of his son Pirano and the other accused on saying so fired with kalashnikovs which hit his maternal-uncle Hadi Bux Jatoi who died at the spot.
7. I am of the view that applicant/accused has no knowledge about pendency of the case against him, but from the perusal of record it appears that his two brothers namely Ghazi and Neko were also facing trial in the same charge in the trial Court, therefore, the plea taken by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused that the accused/applicant has no knowledge about this case has no force. The case-law submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused is not applicable to the present case. The applicant/accused was arrested after 10 years and he was shown as proclaimed offender by the trial Court and the co-accused were tried and acquitted by the trial Court. The Faisla between Mahars and Jatois was held on 12-5-1996 and the applicant/accused did not surrender before the Court of law or before the acquittal order of the co-accused but he remained absconded for a period of more than 4 years after compromise between-two communites. In case of Baloo alias Piyaro v. The State the bail concession was extended on the ground that the said accused was neither nominated in the F.I.R. Nor identification test was held after his arrest, therefore, the abscondence of accused was ignored but in the present case the applicant/accused is nominated in the F.I.R. And accused armed with the deadly weapons fired at the deceased) committed Harabah and forcibly on show of weapons taken away cattles of the complainant and thereafter the applicant/accused absconded away for a period of more than 10 years. The other case-law cited by the teamed counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the circumstances of the present case. In case of Zulfiqar v. The State 1991 SCM R 326 there was absconsion of about 2 years after commission of crime but in the present the accused/applicant absconded away for more than 10 years and compliance of sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. Has been made by the trial Court.
8. For the foregoing circumstances the applicant/accused is not entitled for concession of bail at this stage. The bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.