MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus State

ORDER

FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J .---Petitioner Muhammad Akram, seeks post-arrest bail, in case F.I.R. No.105, dated 5-10-2003, offences under sections, 337/A(iii), 337/F(v), 337%L(ii), 379, 411, 148 and 149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station, Mankera, Division Bhakkar for the allegations of launching an assault upon the complainant and thereby caused injuries, hence, this case.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention. There is a clear contradiction between the ocular account and medical evidence, making the petitioner's case that the further inquiry. The alleged recovery of hatchet is fake one as the petitioner had not used the same during the occurrence. The petitioner is in judicial lock-up for the last two months, hence, he deserves the concession of bail.

3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel vehemently opposed the bail petition contending the petitioner is named in the F.I.R.; he caused injuries to P.W. Munir; he remained absconder; challan has been submitted and charge has been framed against the petitioner hence, he does not deserve any concession.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it manifests that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of raising Lalkara and causing injuries to P.W. Munir with his hatchet. Challan against the petitioner has been submitted in the Court in which charge has been framed. After the occurrence, which took place on 5-10-2003, the petitioner absconded and remained fugitive from law till 11-5-2006 when he was arrested by the police. The abscondance of a noticeable period of 2 and a half years has not been explained by the petitioner. It is well-settled law that the fugitive from law and the Courts loses some of normal rights granted by the procedural as well as substantive law. Reliance is placed on Rehmat Ullah v. The State (1999 PCr.LJ 579 Pesh.).

5. In view of the prevailing circumstances of this case, the petitioner is not entitled to post-arrest bail. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of four months on receipt of this Court, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.

H.B.T./M-731/L Bail refused.