ABDUL KAREEM Versus State

ORDER

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J .---The applicant seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered against him at Police Station Piryalo vide lodgment of FIR No. 108/2014 under sections 302, 148 and 149 read with section 7, A.T.A., 1997. Earlier, the applicant has tried to get similar relief from the trial Court but could not succeed.

2. As per FIR, the allegations against the applicant are that he along with other nominated or unknown but identifiable co-accused persons came to the business place of complainant's brother Abbas Haider Shah and caused firearm injuries to him. The said brother of the complainant succumbed to those injuries while shifting to the hospital. Reportedly, the applicant and other co-accused killed the said brother of the complainant due to sectarian disputation.

3. We have heard the valued submissions of the learned members of the bar appearing for the respective parties. We have also scanned the available records with their able assistance provided during the course of arguments. From whatever articulated or placed before us, we have observed as under:

(a) The counsel for the applicant exuberantly emphasized during his arguments regarding the delay in lodging of FIR but we are of the view that in the particular circumstances of the case, this delay is but natural and the same is plausibly explained within the body of FIR.

(b) The applicant remained absconder for more than four years and preferred to be declared as proclaimed offender instead of surrendering himself before the law. Even after such a long period of fugitiveness, he did not voluntarily appear to face trial but he was obliged to do so as he was arrested in another case due to which he has no other option but to face trial.

(c) It is a settled law that a fugitive to law and trial dis-entitles himself from some of the concessions, which otherwise available to him. Nevertheless, being the gravity of offence and its motive, no exceptional circumstance was said to be ever available to the applicant especially in favour of a bail plea.

(d) The counsel for the applicant also ardently argued regarding re-investigation of the case, which was done before the arrest of the applicant. In this respect, we are of the view that the result of a police report after investigation or re-investigation is not binding upon the Court. The result of re-investigation is usually considered in the light of coupled circumstances, which has urged the police to enter into the process of re-investigation.

(e) It is alleged within the body of FIR that the applicant was associated with a proscribed organization, which was involved in sectarian terrorism. The motive for the murder of the deceased is alleged as sectarian disputation as the deceased was activist in promotion and propagation of his sect, due to which the applicant and his associates were annoyed, as they belong to different sect.

(f) The murder of the deceased was motivated due to clerical strife and conflict in which the applicant and his associates were so desperate that they allegedly did not hesitate to take the life of a person with whom they have no personal grudge or animosity.

(g) It will make no difference that at the time of the commission of offence, the complainant was not present at the place of incident simply because he has the first-hand knowledge of res-gestae and also reported the dying declaration of the deceased, wherein the applicant is allegedly nominated by the deceased as one of the authors of the offence.

4. In view of the above observation, we are of the considered opinion that atleast at this stage the applicant is not entitled to any favourable consideration regarding his release on bail during the pendency of trial. Resultantly, we find the instant bail plea raised on behalf of the applicant as not meritorious.

5. Before parting, we would like to discern that the above observations are tentative in nature, as such the same may have no bearing upon the case of either side during trial. These are the reasons of our short order dated 08.09.2020 whereby the bail plea of applicant/ accused was declined.

SA/A-114/Sindh Bail declined.