THE STATE vs AFTAB GUL
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the grant of pre-arrest bail to the respondent. The core legal questions were whether the respondent, having been previously convicted by a Military Court for non-appearance, could be denied bail on the grounds of being a fugitive from law, and whether anticipatory bail is barred when no mala fides of the arresting agency are demonstrated after the submission of the challan. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the respondent could not be vexed twice for the same default of non-appearance since his sentence had been remitted. Furthermore, the Court held that the conditions of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were satisfied, rendering the grant of bail a matter of right rather than discretion. The key principle established is that once the conditions of Section 497(2) are met, bail is a right, and the absence of police mala fides does not preclude the grant of anticipatory bail when the court finds sufficient grounds for relief.
- Can an accused person be denied bail on the grounds of being a fugitive from law if their previous conviction for non-appearance has been remitted?
- Is the grant of bail a matter of right when the conditions of Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are satisfied?
- Does the absence of police mala fides preclude the grant of anticipatory bail after the submission of a challan?
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAUL ZULLAH, J.--After hearing the learned counsel at length on the two points urged in support of these petitions for cancellation of bail, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
2. The argument that the respondent was fugitive from law and hence not entitled to discretionary relief of bail before arrest, is of no avail in this case as A the respondent having been convicted in that regard by a Military Court his sentence has been remitted. He cannot, in the circumstances be vexed twice for the same default of non-appearance in Court.
3. ' The second argument for denying the relief to him is that no mala fides of the arresting agency having been shown, anticipatory bail could not be granted. It is based on the fact that the challan having been submitted, it will be the Court concerned and not the police, who would direct arrest with non-bailable warrants or otherwise, for appearance in Court. And that the police role is practically over.
4. There is no force in this submission either. The findings by the High Court are such that all the conditions of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Stand satisfied in this case. It is not only a finding by the police that benefits the accused under that provision; the finding of the Court also produces the same effect; namely, that the accused would then be admitted to bail as a matter of right and not in the exercise of discretion. That being so, bail in the circumstances of this case could not be withheld unless and until the State itself took the position that there is no possibility of his arrest in the case.
5. ' Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.