JAMIL AHMED vs THE STATE
This is a criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court seeking post-arrest bail after the trial court dismissed the applicant's previous bail plea. The core legal question revolves around whether an accused who has absconded, misused the concession of bail by remaining absent for about nine months, and forced the issuance of warrants and proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is entitled to the grant of bail in a heinous offence. The court held that the applicant miserably failed to provide any cogent reason for his prolonged absence and rightly misused the concession of bail, justifying the dismissal of the application. The key principle laid down is that the unexplained prolonged absence of an accused and the consequent issuance of coercive process disentitle them to the discretionary relief of bail.
- Whether an accused who remained absent from the trial court for a prolonged period is entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does the initiation of proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a ground for refusing bail?
- Whether misuse of the concession of bail disentitles the accused from claiming further discretionary relief?
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. Granted subject to all just B exceptions.
2. Heard learned counsel for the accused/applicant and learned State Counsel.
' Order dated 9-1-2004 of learned trial Court, whereby the bail application stands rejected, mentions that the accused/applicant stopped appearing before the trial Court for a period or about nine months and, therefore, repeatedly warrants of his arrest were issued and proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Were carried out against the applicant, whereafter his surety produced him before the trial Court; the applicant was admitted to bail by the trial Court in a case which, on the face of the contents of the F.I.R. Appears to be a heinous offence; he misused the concession of such grant of bail and did not care to intimate the trial Court the reason for his absence; it is a conclusive factor that he had no cogent reason for not appearing on the dates of hearing of the case in the trial Court; hence, learned trial Court rightly rejected bail application; therefore, this bail application has no merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Needless to state that applicant will be at liberty to pursue his plea of non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses in the trial Court, which shall be heard and decided on its own merits.