JAMAL Versus THE STATE
This bail application concerns an applicant accused in Crime No. 1 of 1995, registered at Police Station Ghumra, involving an alleged attempt to cause hurt. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was an absconder until his arrest in 2001, was entitled to bail despite his abscondence, given that the FIR attributed no overt act to him. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision is that the status of an accused as an absconder does not automatically disentitle them to bail if, upon consideration of the merits of the case, they would have otherwise been entitled to it. The Court emphasized that the FIR attributed the injury solely to a co-accused, Munawar Ali, and assigned no specific overt role to the applicant. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant had been incarcerated since 2001 without trial proceedings for over a year, further supporting the grant of bail.
- Does the status of an accused as an absconder automatically disentitle them to the grant of bail?
- Should a court consider the merits of the case regarding the role attributed to an accused even if they were previously an absconder?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the FIR attributes no overt role to them and they have remained in custody for a significant period without trial?
ORDER
1. This bail application has been filed in connection with Crime No. 1 of 1995, Police Station Ghumra. It relates to an incident which took place in the year, 1995. Apparently the present applicant along with others made an attempt to cause hurt to the complainant party. From the plain reading of the F. I. R. it is very clear that the complainant attributed the injury caused to him by one Munawar Ali. The only role attributed to the present applicant is that he was also present at the time of the incident. The present applicant is supposed to have absconded and he was arrested in the year 2001. The bail application moved on his behalf has been dismissed on the ground that he was absconder and therefore, not entitled to the concession of bail. It is well-settled law that even if a person is absconder, but if he applies for bail subsequently after being arrested then the Court has to consider as to whether he would have been entitled to bail on the facts relating to the incident or not. In this case no overt role has been attributed to him from the plain reading of the F. I. R.
2. Under the circumstances he would have been entitled to the grant of bail. Furthermore he has been arrested since the year 2001 and has remained behind the bars without the case proceedings for more than a year.
3. The above are the reasons behind which the bail was granted by a short order passed on 30-5-2003.
4. H.B.T./J-9/K Bail granted: