LAL ZAMEEN vs THE STATE and another

'MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The accused/petitioner has applied for his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,108 dated 24-4-2003, registered under sections 324/148/149, P.P.C., Police Station Barawal, District Upper Dir, whereby the present accused/petitioner along with four others were charged for effectively firing on the person of complainant with the intention to commit qatl-e- amd. The motive for the offence as alleged in the F.I.R. Was previous enmity between the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.A.-G. Assisted by learned counsel for the complainant were heard at some length and the case file perused with their assistance.

3. No doubt, that five persons were charged for effectively firing on the person of the complainant to commit his qatl-e-amd A and recovery of empties of different weapons were also made from the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no specific role was attributed to any of the accused. There was sufficient delay in lodging of the F.I.R. And medical report was in contravention of the version given in the F.I.R. He further submitted that one accused was acquitted of the charges by the learned trial Court on 4-6-2008, whereas the other three co-accused were acquitted under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. And he made reliance on case-law on the plea of rule of consistency, further inquiry and mere absconsion would not be sufficient to refuse the concession of bail and the injuries received on the person of the complainant were not on vital part of the body. Whereas, he was unable to explain the un-reasonable and un-explained absconsion of the accused/petitioner. Reliance placed on 2005 PCr.LJ 748 and 2006 PCr.LJ 184.

4. In the criminal dispensation of justice, no specific rule can be framed which could be applied to each and every case and each case has to be seen in its own facts and circumstances. The present occurrence took place in April, 2003, whereas, the accused/petitioner was arrested on 21- 8-2009 and such absconsion has not been fully explained on the record. The accused/petitioner remained absconder and waited till the acquittal of other accused. For bail matters, such absconsion cannot be left un-noticed as fugitive from the law and Courts looses some of normal rights and privileges granted by the procedural as well as substantive law. Unexplained noticeable absconsion would be sufficient for the refusal of the bail to the accused / petitioner and acquittal per se of the co-accused in the case would not be a sufficient ground for the release of accused on bail. So, the instant bail application is dismissed in the circumstances of the case.

5. However, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial of the case within a shortest possible span of timel, but not later than three months, otherwise the accused would be at liberty to move a fresh application for release on bail.