WAHID BUX BROHI, ].- Applicant jamaluddin is facing his trial along with others in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot for an offence punishable u/Ss. 302, 506(2), 148, 149, PPC and 13(d) of Arms Ordinance.
2. According to the F.I.R, the complainant Sulleman, his brothers Lakhan, Khaliqdad and nephew Ali Muhammad were attacked in the town of Kandhkot by 9 persons out of whom Kamil was armed with T.T. Pistol, Jamaluddin, the applicant and Pannah were carrying lathis and rest were armed with guns, In the background of previous enmity over matrimonial dispute, accused Kakal made direct gun i.e at Khaliqdad which hit him on his back and Kamil also fired from his pistol at Khaliqdad which too hit him. He died at the spot. Others pointed their weapons at the complainant party.
3. I have heard Mr. Imtiaz Ali Mugheri, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Ali Azhar Tunio, Asstt. A.G.
Appearing for the State.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that co-accused Arzoo and Baggan have been granted bail by the Trial Court. The role of present applicant has identical to their role therefore, on the rule of consistency, the applicant is also entitled to the grant of bail. He urged that beyond simple presence of the applicant armed with a lathi, no overt act is attributed to him therefore, bail may not be withheld. As regards the absconsa of the applicant, he submitted that since duly last year, he is in custody and he is a 70 years old person, while the trial is making no progress. Since, even the charge has not been framed, the only aspect of abscondence shall not come in the way of grant of bail in the aforesaid circumstances. He has relied on the case of Javaid Anwar v. The State (200I P.Cr.L.J. 1125) and Ali Nawaz v. The State (1995 P.Cr.L.J. 1316, in support of his plea.
5. Learned Asstt. A.G. Opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the applicant absconded away for a sufficiently long time and according to him a fugitive from law looses some of his normal rights.
6. I agree with the learned Asstt. A.G. As that a fugitive from law would certainly lose some of the rights ordinarily available to a citizen, but the right to trial would still exist and he cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period without trial. Normal rights are not lost forever. At present even the charge has not been framed and the applicant has remained in custody for a period of more than 8 months. The authority on the point of absconsa, cited by the learned counsel for the applicant supports the bail plea, In this context, the reliance may also be placed on the case of Jam, Sadiq Ali v. The State (1989 P.Cr.L.J. 1910) and State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmed Awan (1991 SCM R.
322).
7. On merits of the case, the applicant's role is identical to Arzoo and Baggan to whom bail has been granted by the Trial Court, therefore, following the rule of consistency, he is entitled to bail.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the application is allowed. The applicant he released on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 200,000 and executing P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.