AZIZ BIBI vs FAZAL HUSSAIN and another
This appeal challenged a judgment of the Shariat Court which had granted bail to the respondent, setting aside an earlier order of the District Criminal Court. The core legal question was whether the respondent, who had failed to appear before the Court despite repeated opportunities and had allegedly absconded abroad, was entitled to retain the concession of bail. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir observed that the respondent had failed to appear personally and that the medical certificates submitted to justify his absence appeared to be manufactured, as they contained inconsistent signatures. Relying on established precedents, the Court held that a fugitive from law is not entitled to the concession of bail. Consequently, the Court found that the respondent had misused the bail concession by absconding. The Court recalled the bail order granted by the Shariat Court, thereby cancelling the respondent's bail. The judgment reaffirms the principle that a person who absconds or fails to appear before the Court forfeits their right to remain on bail.
- Is a fugitive from law entitled to the concession of bail?
- Does the submission of suspicious medical documents to justify non-appearance constitute misuse of bail?
- Can bail be cancelled if the accused fails to appear before the Court despite being granted the concession?
' MUHAMMAD REAZ AKHTAR CHAUDHRY, C.J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Shariat Court, dated 8-11-2004, whereby the revision petition filed by respondent No,l was accepted and the order of District Criminal Court Mirpur, dated 17-9-2004 was set aside. Resultantly the concession of bail was allowed to respondent.
2. A notice was issued to respondent but he did not appear personally before the Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate, appeared on behalf of respondent and sought various adjournments on the ground that he will produce the respondent on the next date but failed to produce him. The respondent never appeared before this Court.
3. Mr. Khalid Rasheed, the learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the respondent is not present before the Court, therefore, he has misused the concession of bail. He submitted that, the bail granted to respondent may be cancelled because no fugitive from law can obtain concession of bail.
4. Mr. Muhammad Azam Khan, the learned counsel for respondent No,l, contended that the respondent is suffering from the disease of Cancer, therefore, he has gone abroad for treatment and could not attend the Court. The learned counsel submitted that the respondent may be exempted from personal appearance on the said ground and the appeal may be dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The perusal of record shows that the respondent after obtaining concession of bail went abroad and did not appear before the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent on the last date of hearing even stated before this Court that he will produce respondent on the next date but he did not produce him. We have gone through the Photostat copies of medical certificates issued by Dr. J.
Delgado, Locum Consultant Haematologist, Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull, U.K. According to these documents the respondent is suffering from Cancer but these documents contain different signatures of the said doctor which prima facie shows that these documents have been manufactured and the respondent after obtaining concession of bail has absconded. Thus he has misused the concession of bail. In the case reported as Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan PLD 1985 SC 402, Javed Alam v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 964 and Muhammad Akram v. The State 1993 SCR 300 it has been held that no fugitive from law is entitled to concession of bail. Therefore, the concession of to him through order of Shariat Court, dated 8-11-2004 is recalled on the ground that the respondent has misused the concession of bail and did not appear before the Court. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Bail Cancelled