MUHAMMAD AMEEN Versus GULZAR MUHAMMAD

ORDER

Applicant Muhammad Bachal alias Rasool Bux who is detained in Crime No.61 of 1988, Rustam Police Station under section 307/324/323, P.P.C. and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965 applied for bail before learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, but the same was refused vide order, dated 25-3-1990. He has, therefore, approached this Court with the same prayer.

2. I have heard Mr. Jai Jai Veshno Mange Ram Balmiki, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, learned AA.-G. for State. The latter has raised no objection to the grant of bail to applicant.

3. The applicant who was wanted in the above case was shown as absconder in the charge-sheet but admittedly no proceedings under section 87/88, Cr.P.C. were drawn against him. As observed in Khan Mir v. Amal Sherin alias Kamal and 2 others reported in 1989 S C M R 1987, that where no proceedings under section 87/88, Cr.P.C. are taken against the accused in respect of his abscondence then such an act of alleged absocndence is of no consequence. In other words, it has been held by the Supreme Court that an accused person can be declared as an absconder only when proclamation under section 87/88, Cr.P.C. is issued against him, and in such an exigency he loses the normal rights of grant of bail on merits.

4. The main accused is already on bail the role attributed to the present applicant is that of firing in the air. In this view of the matter, I am in E agreement with the view taken by the learned AA.-G. that the applicant is entitled to the grant of bail. Accordingly bail is allowed to applicant in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rs. fifty thousand only) with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur.

N.H.Q./M-1973/K Bail allowed.