' Having been involved in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,763, dated 8-11-2001 under section 302/34, P.P.C. In Police Station, University Town Peshawar, the accused-petitioner moved an application for his release on bail in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar, but the same was rejected vide order, dated 9-2-2003. Now he has moved this Court for his release on bail.
2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 8-11-2001 at 9.35 a.m. The deceased namely Ali Akbar then injured reported the matter to Zahir Shah, S.-I. Incharge Casualty Khyber Teaching Hospital, Peshawar to the effect that on the eventful day he was proceeding to Deh Palosi in connection with some personal affairs when he reached the place of occurrence the petitioner and co-accused namely Aulas, Haneef Khan, Nawaz Khan who were armed with deadly weapons sprayed bullets on his person in the result of which he sustained injuries. The incident statedly has been witnessed by one Sanobar who happened to be the brother of the deceased. On such a report the present case against the petitioner and absconding accused was registered under section 324/34, P.P.C., however, the injured/ complainant later on succumbed to his injuries at hospital therefore, section 302, P.P.C. Was added.
3. Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a cross case registered vide F.I.R. No,764 on the same day and time in the same police station and parties in both the cases were-the same. The occurrence had taken place in front of the house of the accused-petitioner which fact shows that the accused charged in F.I.R. No,764 were the aggressors. The question as to who was the aggressor and who was aggressed upon would require further enquiry. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Akram v. State PLD 1993 Pesh.
175.
4. On the other hand Mr. Asadulalh Khan Chamkani, Advocate the learned counsel representing the complainant and Mr. Shah Nawaz Khan, Advocate the learned counsel appearing for the State argued that the F.I.R. Was promptly lodged by Ali Akbar in injured condition, who on 25-11-2001 succumbed to his injuries. The F.I.R. Was in fact his dying declaration in which the accused- petitioner had been charged for effective firing on him.
5. It was also argued that the medico-legal report also supports the case of prosecution because there was multiple injuries found on the body of the deceased.
6. It was also argued that the accused-petitioner immediately after the commission of offence went into hiding and remained absconder for good two years. He did not surrender voluntarily, but was arrested in a raid conducted by local police and a case was registered vide F.I.R. No,560, dated 13-7-2003 against him under section 13, Arms Ordinance in the same police station.
7. It was also argued that the challan of the case has been submitted, charge has been framed and the trial of the case has been commenced and there is likelihood of the conclusion of trial in the near future.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. I am not inclined to release the accused-petitioner on bail firstly because there is a prima facie case connecting the accused-petitioner with the commission of offence he was charged in the F.I.R. For effective firing and causing injuries on the private/delicate parts of the body of the deceased complainant.
'Secondly, the medical evidence lends full support to the prosecution case. Multiple injuries were found on the body of the complainant, who succumbed to his injuries on 25-11-2001.
'Thirdly, the accused petitioner remained absconder for sufficient long time. Occurrence in this case had taken place on 8-11-2001, whereas the accused-petitioner was arrested during a raid conducted by the local police on 13-7-2003. He was found in possession of unlicensed arm for which a case under section 13, Arms Ordinance was registered vide F.I.R. No,560 on the same day at Police Station, ' University Town Peshawar. Since he remained absconder for about two years, therefore, he lost some of the normal rights granted by the procedural as well as substantive law for bail. His abscondence was unexplained and was noticeable, hence he disentitled him to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case. Wisdom in this regard has been gained from Sher Ali alias Sheri v. State 1998 SCM R 190 and Khial Gul and another v. State and another 2002 PCr.LJ 1054.
' Fourthly, the challan of the case has been submitted In the Court and the trial is likely to conclude in the near future.
' For the foregoing reasons the application in hand is dismissed.