' Heard.
2. Muhammad Alyas son of Muhammad Ramzan Caste Jat, resident of Village Pakhariwala, Tehsil and District Narowal, petitioner, has applied for his after arrest bail in the case Bearing F.I.R. No.273 of 2001 dated 29-10-2001, which stands registered under section 302/34/109, P.P.C. With Police Station Saddar, Narowal.
3. The facts of the prosecution case in short are that on 28/29-10-2001 at about 12-30 a.m. (after midnight) in the area of Mauza Kakkay Ki Police Station Saddar Narowal when Muhammad Iqbal complainant, Abdul Razzaq, Muhammad Ramzan were sitting at the Cane Crusher of Akbar Ali installed in the open land of Muhammad Hanif, while Muhammad Boota and Muhammad Yaseen were sitting in the Haveli out-side the residential house where two unknown persons armed with Kalashnikov and pistol came and tried to carry Muhammad Boota and Muhammad Yaseen at some distance but there was, an altercation between them, consequently, the unknown persons fired with their weapon on Muhammad Boota and Yaseen, who succumbed to their injuries at the spot. So at the instance of Muhammad Tufail the abovesaid case was registered. Later on in his supplementary statement recorded on 29-11-2001 Muhammad Iqbal complainant alleged that Anwar ul Haq alias Nanna, Muhammad Ramzan alias Kala and Muhammad Ilyas the present petitioner on the instigation of Shahid alias Bhutto committed the Qatl-i-Amd of Muhammad Boota and Muhammad Yasin his nephews by firing at them because Shahid alias Bhutto had apprehension that both the deceased persons were having their contracts with Javaid alias Jaida opponent of Shahid alias Bhutto.
' While Abdul Razzaq in his supplementary statement recorded on the same day i.e. 29-11-2001 mainly stated that Muhammad Yaseen in injured condition told that the fire-shots were made by Anwar-ul-Haq alias Nanna, Muhammad Ramzan alias Kala and Muhammad Ilyas, therefore, he himself could not identify the assailants and Muhammad Ramzan in his supplementary statement stated that Muhammad Ilyasarmed with a rifle and Anwar ul Haq armed with a pistol fired with their weapons at Muhammad Bhoota and when Muhammad Yaseen was running, Muhammad Ilyas and Anwar-ul-Haq fired with their weapons on Muhammad Yasin and when Muhammad Yaseen was in senses he told to his sister Mst. Yasmin that Anwar-ul-Haq, Muhammad Ilyas and Muhammad Ramzan alias Kala had fired on them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. And he was nominated in the supplementary statement which was recorded after one month of the occurrence; that the version advanced by the prosecution witnesses was something-else on 29-11- 2001 but later on they came forward with different version by naming the present petitioner and two others as mentioned above as assailants and the 4th person named Shahid Mehmood is the man behind the occurrence; that the co-accused have been allowed bail by this Court vide orders dated 16-5-2002 (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1224-B of 2002 titled Shahid Mehmood Bhutto v.
State) dated 11-9-2002 (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3878-B of 2002 titled Muhammad Ramzan v.
The State) and dated 20-11-2002 (In Criminal Miscellaneous No.2308 of 2002 titled Anwar-ul-Haq v.
The State passed by my learned brother M.A. Shahid Siddiqui, J.
5. The perusal of Zimni dated 1-12-2002 reveals that pistol .30 bore was recovered from Anv?Ar-ul-Haq and rifle was recovered ffom Shahid alias Bhutto co- accused in this case while no weapon could be recovered from the petitioner and he was sent to judicial lock-up. It is obvious that the case of the petitioner is at par with his co-accused who have been allowed bail by this Court.
' While refusing bail to the petitioner, the learned trial Court observed that the petitioner remained fugitive from law for about one year, therefore, due to this fact against the petitioner it disentitled him for the grant of bail and besides it no other ground was available with the learned trial Court to refuse bail to the petitioner.
' The fact of abscondence at the stage of bail and also at trial is such which may force to believe that the person involved in the alleged occurrence had slipped away out of fear of the police and the complainant party or he was actually an accused in the case, therefore, this matter requires further probe and inquiry and the mere fact of abscondence is not sufficient to refuse bail to the petitioner.
6. Consequently Muhammad Ilyas petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.200,000 (rupeestwo lacs) With one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of B the learned trial Court.
Petition is hereby accepted.