TUFAIL AHMED vs The STATE

ORDER

ABDUL RASOOL MEMON, J.---Applicant Tufail Ahmed seeks post arrest bail in Crime No,28 of 2001 registered at Police Station A.C.E. Larkana for offence punishable under sections 468, 477-A, 120-B, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-II of 1947. The learned trial Court vide order dated 2-4-2013 rejected the bail plea of the present applicant with the following observations:-- "No doubt name of present applicant/accused is not appearing in the F.I.R. But there could be made no denial to the fact that it transpired during course of investigation. It is true that co- accused Abdul Semi has already been admitted to bail but there could be made no denial to the fact that he was having no absconsion in his credit as the present applicant/accused is having being in knowledge of the pendency of the case against him applied for pre-arrest bail and then slipped away from the Court when his that application was going to be dismissed on merits and then remained in absconsion successfully for about nine years, he indeed is fugitive of law, this fact alone disentitles him to concession of bail."

2. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that co-accused Abdul Samee whose case is identical to the present applicant who has already been admitted to bail by the learned trial Court, therefore on the rule of consistency the present applicant is entitled for bail but his bail plea was rejected on the ground that the present applicant has abscondence in his credit, as the concession of interim pre-arrest bail was granted to him but then he was slipped away. He further contends that the applicant was otherwise entitled on bail on merits then abscondence will not come -in his way. Moreover, the present applicant was arrested on 28-3-2012 and since then he is in jail since from last about six months and has sufficiently been punished, therefore, present applicant may be admitted to bail. Learned counsel has placed his reliance on the case of Dosoo v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 933 and Sharbat and another v. The State 2003 MLD 1191.

3. Learned State Counsel has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the present applicant has remained fugitive from law and is not entitled to discretionary relief of the grant of post arrest bail.

4. I have given careful consideration and gone through the material available on record.

Admittedly co-accused Abdul Sami has already been admitted to bail whose case is identical to that of the present applicant but the bail plea of the present applicant was withheld by the learned trial Court on the ground that after the, grant of interim pre-arrest bail, he slipped away.

5. It is worthwhile to mention here that the learned trial Court did not look into this aspect of the case that on merits the applicant has a good case; the abscondence alone should not come in the way of grant of bail. No doubt a fugitive from law loses some of his, rights, but he does not lose the right of bail for ever and he is also entitled to fair and just trial within a reasonable time. The present applicant who has jumped away after grant of pre-arrest bail and on his arrest has remained in jail for more than six months and has sufficiently been punished and in similar circumstances in the case of Dosoo (supra), the applicant who has remained absconder on his arrest when he remained in jail for eight months he was released on post arrest bail. The said case law is fully applicable in the circumstances of this case. Therefore, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs, 100,000, and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.