Rao QADEER KHAN vs THB STATE
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through criminal petitions seeking leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's order refusing post-arrest bail to the petitioner in multiple cases involving fraud, forgery, and misappropriation. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner is entitled to bail notwithstanding allegations of abscondence, conduct amounting to abuse of process, and the merits of the accusations. The Supreme Court held that the petitions must be dismissed, finding that the petitioner's prolonged abscondence and repeated attempts to abuse the process of law disentitled him to the discretionary relief of bail, regardless of whether the offences fell within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that proven abscondence and the abuse of court process through frivolous or repetitive bail applications independently disentitle an accused person from receiving pre-trial bail.
- Does prolonged abscondence disentitle an accused person to the concession of bail?
- Whether repeated applications for anticipatory bail and subsequent absence amount to an abuse of the process of law and court?
- Can an accused person claim bail as a matter of right despite conduct that disentitles them to discretionary relief?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Through these Criminal Petitions (Nos. 515 to 522 of 1980) leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 21-9-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's request for bail in several cases of fraud/forgery, misappropriation and like offences was refused on the grounds of merits, abscondence and conduct of the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel has contended that out of three approvers only two involved the petitioner and that aspect too would not bear scrutiny, inter alga, for reason of attempt at self-exculpation; that the offence, if any, would not be beyond section 420, P. P. C. That there is no independent documentary evidence against the petitioner; that the petitioner is not mentioned as an accused by the informant in the F. I. R. Of an earlier connected case; and even if his name was mentioned as culprit by other persons, during the investigation leading to discovery of the present set of cases against the petitioner and others; it would not make any difference for him; and that some of the co-accused of the petitioner have been released on bail. Learned counsel also urged similar other grounds taken in the petition, and tried to explain away the conduct of the petitioner including abscondence, which was subject-matter of adverse comment by the learned trial Judge and the High Court.
3. We have examined the grounds urged by him. It stands prima facie established that the petitioner was an absconder. This would be so even if the explanation offered from the petitioner's side is taken into consideration. The abscondence is of such period and type that the petitioner has disentitled himself to the concession of bail, whether the case falls within the prohibitory or other field of subsection (1) of section 497 read with 498, Cr. P. C.
4. We are also in agreement with the learned Courts below that the conduct of the petitioner by making repeated applications for anticipatory bail, trying to gain advantage thereunder and then absenting for periods of time, amounted to abuse of the process of law and Court. It disentitled the petitioner to the discretionary relief.
5. The above-noted considerations, jointly and severally, are enough to dismiss this petition. However, after examining the merits also the petitioner' case is not found fit for grant of bail, nor is fit for leave to appeal. These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 37 cases
- Raheem Ullah Khan vs The State 2023 YLR 1246
- Mudassar Ghafoor vs The State etc. 2015 LHC 3925
- Waqas Hussain Shah vs The State and another K.L.R. 2015 Criminal Cases 1
- FAYYAZ AHMAD vs The STATE and another 2013 YLR 1914
- AZAM KHAN vs THE STATE and others 2012 YLR 949
- NOOR SAMAND vs STATE and another PLJ 2010 Cr.C. (Lahore) 832
- ABDUL MAJEED and another vs STATE and another PLJ 2011 Cr.C. (Lahore) 538
- ADREES AHMAD and others vs ZAFAR ALI and another 2010 SCMR 64
- Adrees Ahmad and others vs Zafer Ali and another 2011 PSC (Crl.) 679
- RAMZAN and 3 others vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2086
- SADARDIN alias SADAR vs THE STATE 2007 P Cr. L J 1579
- FAYYAZ HUSSAIN and 3 others vs STATE and another 2006 PLJ FSC 200
- FAYYAZ HUSSAIN and 3 others vs THE STATE and anothers 2006 P Cr. L J 950
- NIMAZ DIN and 2 others vs THE STATE 2005 YLR 2233
- Khawaja NOOR vs MUMTALAH KHAN And Another 2003 YLR 151
- MUHAMMAD SUBHAN vs THE STATE and another 2002 YLR 1373
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ vs MUHAMMAD NISAR and 7 otherss 2003 P Cr. L J 20
- Malik ZAFAR ABBAS vs Agha RAZA ABBAS QAZILBASH and another 2002 PLD Supreme Court 529
- MUHAMMAD AZIM BROHI vs MUHAMMAD and anothers 2000 YLR 157
- SALEEM CHANG vs THE STATE 2000 PLD Karachi 70
- SHAKEEL AHMAD vs THE STATE 2000 P Cr. L J 116
- SHER ALI alias SHERI vs THE STATE 1998 SCMR 190
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN vs TAJ MUHAMMAD and another 1996 P Cr. L J 2006
- MUHAMMAD IMRANULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE K.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 66
- Mir MURTAZA BHUTTO vs THE STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 1416
- MEHTAB KHAN and others vs THE STATE 1994 SCMR 1472
- TOTAL and others vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 615
- GUL MUHAMMAD vs RANO and others 1989 P Cr. L J 82
- IBRAHIM vs HAYAT GUL And Other 1985 SCMR 382
- AWAL GUL vs ZAWAR KHAN AND arHERss 1985 PLD Supreme Court 402
- MURAD ALI and 3 others vs SANAULLAH 1987 CLC 1219
- MEHAR DIN vs ALAMDAR HUSSAIN AND ANOTHER.S 1982 SC M R670
- MURAD KHAN vs FAZALESUBHAN AND ANOTHER 1983 PLD Supreme Court 82
- State through Advocate General Azad Government of the State of Jammu 2014 PSC (Crl.) 466
- MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus STATE 1999 YLR 2245
- Rai Mumtaz Hussain Babar Versus State 2025 PCrLJ 1253
- SHER AHMED alias SHERI Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 255