1. ' GULZAR AHMED, J.--- Applicant Allah Dino son of Ali Sher has approached this Court for, grant of bail in offence under sections 302, 457, 380, P.P.C. In Crime No,39 of 2001, Police Station Dhamrah.
2. ' The facts narrated in the complaint by Rajib Ali son of Noor Muhammad Junejo are that the complainant resides in a Pacca house surrounded by a wall having a wooden door. On the day of incident i,e, 30-4-2001 at .2-00 hours at night, the complainant arid his family members were sleeping and his cattle were tethered in the courtyard. The complainant woke up on barking of dogs and found that the exit door was open and the buffaloes were missing. The complainant raised alarm, which attracted his cousins Ghulam Shabir, Bashir Ahmed and Abdul Sattar.
3. Complainant and the above named witnesses chased the thieves and about 2-30 a.m. When they reached near watercourse of Juneja Chandia Sim Shakh, they found four persons namely Niaz and Dur Muhammad armed with kalashnikovs, the present applicant and Munawar armed with guns and three unidentified persons were taking away the complainant's buffaloes. Complainant challenged the accused persons on which accused Dur Muhammad fired which tit the complainant's cousin Ghulam Shabir, who fell down. The culprits however, decamped while firing in the air and left the buffaloes behind. The injured Ghulam Shabbir was taken to hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. The complaint was accordingly lodged.
4. ' It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the complainant and applicant are known to each other and there is political enmity between them and that earlier also the applicant was involved in a criminal case at the behest of the complainant party. The applicant was however, acquitted. He states that no overt act is attributed to the present applicant and the case of the present applicant at best could be of vicarious liability, which would require further inquiry. With regard to the absconsion of the applicant, the counsel submits that the applicant was not aware of the case. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the case of Ali Nawaz v. State 1988 PCr.LJ 1736, Sharbat v. State 2003 M LD 1191.
5. ' The complainant counsel has opposed the bail application and has contended that name of the present applicant appears in the complaint and he has also been implicated in the statements of the P.Ws. Under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. He has further contended that the door of the complainant's house was cut by a scissor and such scissor was recovered from the present applicant. He states that the applicant being absconder is not entitled to the grant of bail. In support he has relied upon the case of Sher Ali alias Sheri v. State 1998 SCM R 190. The counsel for the State has also opposed the bail and has contended that the case against the present applicant is that of section 460, P.P.C. Which provides punishment for life imprisonment and come within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr:P.C.
6. ' We have asked the State Counsel to show us a challan, a photostat copy of which was provided to us in which there is no mention of the offence under section 460, P.P.C.
7. ' We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have gone through the record.
8. ' The F.I.R. Does not contain allegation that complainant has seen the present applicant coming in his house and taking away the buffaloes; but it was only at the watercourse of Juneja Chandia Sim Shakh the complainant saw the present applicant along with co-accused, taking away the complainant's buffaloes. It was at this place that the deceased Ghulam Shabir was injured. The counsel for the complainant also admitted that in the complaint as well as in the statements under sections 161 and 164, Cr.P.C. No direct role of commission of any offence attracting capital punishment has been attributed to the present applicant. He has however, stated that a scissor has been recovered from the present applicant which directly connects him with the crime. In our view such the question of recovery of the scissor and its implication require deeper appreciation.
9. ' As regards abscondence, the applicant has submitted that he was not aware of the case, in any event, abscondence alone should not come in way of grant of bail. No doubt a fugitive from law loses some of his rights, but he does not lose right of bail forever. The applicants' bail application was rejected by the trial Court in January, 2003 and has suffered imprisonment for sufficient period, without trial.
10. ' We are satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, bail application is allowed. The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,2,50,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.