AHSAN ALI vs THE STATE
This bail application arose from a criminal case where the applicant, Ahsan Ali, sought confirmation of interim bail in connection with an offence registered at Police Station, New Fojdari, Shikarpur. The core legal question was whether an accused who has absconded and faced proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is automatically disentitled to bail, even when the prosecution's evidence against co-accused has proven insufficient. The Sindh High Court held that while abscondence generally impacts an accused's rights, it does not create an absolute bar to bail. The court observed that in the trial of co-accused, prosecution witnesses failed to identify or name any culprits, as the perpetrators had their faces muffled. Consequently, the court confirmed the applicant's bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is otherwise entitled to bail on the merits of the case, and their abscondence has not prejudiced the prosecution's case, the status of being a fugitive does not necessarily preclude the grant of bail.
- Does the status of an absconder automatically disentitle an accused from the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted to an accused who has faced proceedings under sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the prosecution evidence against co-accused fails to identify the perpetrators?
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.---Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. ' Learned counsel for the applicant Ahsan Ali has placed on record a certified copy of judgment, dated 23-9-2005 passed by IV-Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Shikarpur in criminal case No,184/2004 pertaining to the crime No,194/2004 of Police Station, New Fojdari, Shikarpur. (viz. For which offence the present bail application is moved); the narration of the facts and findings recorded by the said trial Court mentions that the witnesses examined by the prosecution in the said criminal case deposed that the culprits, who committed theft of the paddy, had their faces muffled and were not identified by them; they, even did not name any culprit for having committed the alleged incident/offence.
3. ' The trial Court rejected the bail application of the present applicant/accused for the reason that despite issurance of proclamation under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. He preferred to remain absconder and, therefore, was not entitled to the grant of bail.
4. ' It is a settled principle of law that absconder/fugitive from the process of law loses some rights including the grant of bail, which otherwise are admissible to him, but it is also a settled principle of law that where an accused is found entitled to the grant of bail, irrespective of his abscondence or otherwise, and the same having not put the prosecution to any adverse circumstances due to his abscondency such an accused is entitled to the grant of bail.
5. ' Looking at the fact that the trial against co-accused Shahzado and Mouj Ali proceeded wherein complainant and witnesses did not name any particular person for having committed the alleged offence of this case, interim bail already granted to the applicant is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions.