Mst. RUKHSANA vs THE STATE
This matter concerns an application for bail before arrest filed by the applicant, Mst. Rukhsana, who was previously granted bail after arrest in connection with Crime No. 7 of 2002, registered under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who had previously been granted bail but subsequently defaulted on her appearance before the trial court due to alleged illness, should be granted bail before arrest. The court observed that the applicant had initially been granted bail on merits and that her previous surety had already been forfeited following her absence. Considering the circumstances, including the applicant's explanation for her absence and her willingness to furnish fresh surety, the court held that the ends of justice would be served by granting bail. The court established the principle that where an accused has previously been granted bail on merits and provides a reasonable explanation for subsequent absence, bail may be restored or granted upon the condition of furnishing fresh, enhanced surety to ensure future attendance at trial.
- Can an accused who previously defaulted on bail conditions be granted bail before arrest?
- Does the forfeiture of a previous surety preclude the grant of fresh bail?
- Is illness a valid ground for excusing absence in criminal proceedings for the purpose of bail?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. ' ATA-UR-REHMAN, J.--- 1. Granted.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. ' This application for bail before arrest has been filed by applicant Mst. Rukhsana daughter of Abdullah who is involved in Crime No,7 of 2002 under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
3. ' The applicant was granted bail after arrest by the trial Court sometime in July, 2002. She kept on attending the trial Court till 10-11-2003. However, on 17-11-2003 she was called absent and N.B.Ws.
4. Were issued against her and also notice to her surety. Thereafter on 20-4-2004 she surrendered herself before the Court of Session Dadu with Criminal Bail Application No,788 of 2004 which was transferred to the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu where her application was dismissed. Hence the present application.
5. ' Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.A.-G. And perused the record.
6. ' Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is resident of Larkana whereas the case is proceeding at Kotri. He further submitted that the applicant fallen sick and had no mode to intimate the Court to that effect. He further submitted that the surety submitted by her earlier has already been forfeited by the trial Court. He also added that the present applicant has already been punished enough and is ready and willing to furnish fresh surety in the enhanced amount and undertakes not to remain absent from the trial Court in future.
7. ' Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly to the fact that the applicant was granted bail by the trial Court on merits, however, she remained absent on account of her illness as stated by her in the application. Her earlier surety has already been forfeited and the ends of justice will meet if she is allowed bail on her furnishing fresh surety in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.