JAMAL vs THE STATE
This bail application arises from Crime No. 1 of 1995 registered at Police Station Ghumra concerning an incident where the applicant and others allegedly attempted to cause hurt. The core legal question was whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail despite being classified as an absconder, where the FIR attributes no overt role or specific injury to him. The Sindh High Court held that abscondence alone does not disentitle an accused to bail if the merits of the case otherwise warrant it, noting that no overt role was attributed to the applicant in the FIR and that he had remained incarcerated for a substantial period without trial progression. The court thus confirmed the grant of bail, establishing that the primary consideration for bail remains the facts and role attributed in the incident rather than mere abscondence.
- Is an accused person disentitled to post-arrest bail solely on the ground of being an absconder?
- Does the absence of an overt role in the FIR entitle an accused to the concession of bail?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without progress in case proceedings is a ground for granting bail?
ORDER
1. ' This bail application has been filed in connection with Crime No,1 of 1995, Police Station Ghumra. It relates to an incident which took place in the year, 1995. Apparently the present applicant along with others made an attempt to cause hurt to the complainant party. From the plain reading of the F.I.R. It is very clear that the complainant attributed the injury caused to him by one Munawar Ali.
2. The only role attributed to the present applicant is that he was also present at the time of the incident. The present applicant is supposed to have absconded and he was arrested in the year 2001. The bail application moved on his behalf has been dismissed on the ground that he was absconder and therefore, not entitled to the concession of bail. It is well-settled law that even if a person is absconder, but if he applies for bail subsequently after being arrested then the Court has to consider as to whether he would have been entitled to bail on the facts relating to the incident or not. In this case no overt role has been attributed to him from the plain reading of the F.I.R.
3. ' Under the circumstances he would have been entitled to the grant of bail. Furthermore he has been arrested since the year 2001 and has remained behind the bars without the case proceedings for more than a year.
4. ' The above are the reasons behind which the bail was granted by a short order passed on 30-5- 2003. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.