GHULAM ABBAS Versus STATE

ORDER

1. This bail application is moved on behalf of the applicant who is facing trial before Sessions Court, Larkana under section 302, P.P.C. The brief facts of the case against the applicant are, that deceased Mst. Roshan was wife of the applicant. On 23‑10‑1985 at 2‑00 p.m. her dead and decomposed body was found by complainant Manzoor Ali near Tunio watercourse on the northern bank of Lundi Shakh. The complainant went to the house of the applicant, who was absent, but his children Rukia Begum aged 10 years and Ayaz Hussain aged 8 years told him, I that three days earlier their father Ghulam Abbas had taken their' mother on the pretext that he will leave her with her brothers for the purpose of delivery of child. Such F.I.R. was lodged on the same day at 7‑00 p.m. However, the applicant remained absconding and was arrested on 3‑2‑1986, after which challan was submitted in the Court on 18‑2‑1986 but the case has not proceeded.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits, that there is no direct evidence against the applicant, but the entire prosecution case is based on suspicion which makes it a case of further inquiry and as such the applicant is entitled to bail.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has opposed the bail application on the grounds that there is evidence of the two minor children of the accused /applicant to the effect, that the applicant had taken away his wife. He further states, that there is medical evidence to show, that deceased was murdered about three days before her dead body was found. He further contends, that the fact that applicant remained unconcerned about the missing of his wife, that he did not lodge report with the police and further that he remained absconding for nearly about three months is strong circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of the applicant.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on 1986 PCr.LJ 700 wher6 bail was granted to the accused by learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, when there was no direct testimony on record connecting the applicant with the offence but the entire prosecution case rested on last seen evidence and extra‑judicial confession. The present case is obviously distinguishable from the reported case inasmuch as, that in this case the deceased person was the wife of the applicant who not only did not report her missing to police but remained absconding for three months.

5. The learned A.A.‑G. has relied on P L D 1985 SC 402 wherein their Lordships have held:‑--

6. "It is now well‑established law that a fugitive from law and Courts loses some of normal rights granted by the procedural as also substantive law. It is also a well‑established proposition that unexplained noticeable abscondence disentitles a person to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case the principle being that the accused by his conduct thwarts the investigation qua him in which valuable evidence (like recoveries etc.) is simply lost or is made impossible to be collected (by his conduct)."

7. In a recent case reported in P L D 1985 SC 182 in case of Muhammad Sadiq v. Sadiq and others their Lordships of the Supreme Court have interpreted words 'further inquiry' and it has been held:‑

8. "Correct interpretation of 'further inquiry' is that bail is to be allowed only where no reasonable grounds exist for believing that accused has committed a non‑bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt."

9. In the same case it is further held:‑--

10. "Absconding accused disentitled himself to concession of bail notwithstanding merits of his case, unless he can satisfactorily explain period of his abscondence."

11. Looking to the facts of the case and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it cannot be said at this stage that the applicant has satisfactorily explained his abscondence or that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant has not committed a non‑bailable offence. The bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage. However, the applicant will be at liberty to move bail application afresh after evidence is recorded or if there are fresh grounds.

12. S.A./5179/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail refused.