DOSOO vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by an accused who had previously been granted bail on merits but subsequently jumped bail, remained a fugitive for several years, and was later re-arrested. Following his re-arrest, the applicant sought fresh bail, which was initially dismissed by the trial court. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the applicant, having previously jumped bail and absconded, was entitled to the grant of fresh bail after serving approximately eight months in custody post-re-arrest. The High Court held that while the applicant's conduct of absconding was a significant factor, his prior grant of bail on merits and the subsequent period of incarceration served as sufficient punishment for his default. Consequently, the Court allowed the bail application, emphasizing that the interest of justice warranted his release, provided he furnished enhanced solvent sureties to ensure his future appearance. The principle laid down is that while jumping bail is a serious transgression, the court may exercise discretion to grant fresh bail if the accused has been sufficiently punished through post-arrest detention and provides adequate security to guarantee attendance.
- Can an accused who has previously jumped bail and remained a fugitive be granted fresh bail after being re-arrested?
- Does a period of post-arrest incarceration after an accused is re-captured following abscondence constitute sufficient punishment to warrant the grant of fresh bail?
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' The applicant was granted bail on merits by this Court on 5-9-1996. He furnished surety and was released from jail. On 19-7-1999, he jumped his bail and remained fugitive from law up to 12-4- 2002. No intimation was given to the trial Court in this regard: Subsequently on reference from the trial Court, this Court was pleased to cancel his bail and directed the trial Court to take further legal action against surety and the accused. He was then declared absconder and proceedings under sections 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. Were initiated. On 13-4-2002. Applicant/ accused appeared before the trial Court, pursuant to the non-bailable warrants issued by the Court.
2. ' The applicant moved fresh bail application in the trial. Court which was dismissed.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Nooruddin Sarki learned counsel appearing for applicant. He states that the applicant after his re-arrest has remained in jail for about 8 months. He has been sufficiently punished. He is prepared to furnish solvent and reliable surety for his appearance in the trial Court, in future. On merits, he was already granted bail.
4. ' Mr. Habibur Rashid learned counsel appearing for State has stated his no objection but he states that bond amount may be extended from previous one, so that he may not jump his bail again.
5. ' His bail application was considered on merits and the applicant was released on bail. He was remanded to custody as he jumped the bail and action was taken against him and his surety. By now, he has remained in jail for about 8 months after his re-arrest. After his arrest he has been sufficiently punished, therefore, in the interest of justice, he shall be released on bail if he furnishes two reliable and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs each) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 6 cases
- Muhsin Islam & salih Islam vs the State & others 2017 PHC 567
- MUHSIN ISLAM and another vs The STATE and 2 others 2018 MLD 428
- TUFAIL AHMED vs The STATE 2015 P Cr. L J 51
- GODHO alias MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE 2012 YLR 2822
- MUMTAZ ALI vs THE STATE 2007 PLD Karachi 127
- NISAR Versus State 2008 MLD 926