GHULAM HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ghulam Hussain, who was charged under Section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The petitioner had previously been granted bail but subsequently failed to appear in court, leading to his declaration as a proclaimed offender under Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and the separation of his case under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner contended that his absence was not intentional, as he had relocated to Karachi for employment and did not receive notice of the challan submission. The State opposed the bail, citing the petitioner's status as an absconder. The Court held that since the petitioner had been arrested and detained for approximately one year, this period of incarceration was sufficient to ensure his future attendance at trial. Consequently, the Court granted the bail petition, subject to the petitioner furnishing substantial surety bonds, reasoning that the purpose of securing his presence could be adequately served through financial guarantees rather than continued detention.
- Does the status of a proclaimed offender automatically disentitle an accused from the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Can a period of one year in pre-trial detention be considered sufficient to justify the grant of bail for an absconding accused?
- Is the absence of an accused from trial proceedings due to lack of notice a valid ground for reconsidering bail after arrest?
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Ghulam Hussain, the petitioner has sought for relief of post-arrest bail in Case F.I.R. No,559 dated 5-7-1999 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) registered with Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he was ' allowed bail in the instant case but later on went to Karachi for labour; that after submission of challan he did not receive any intimation in respect of the same and in his absence he was declared proclaimed offender as a result of proceedings under section 87, Cr.P.C. And his case separated under section 512, Cr.P.C.
From his accused; that he after his arrest has not intentionally absented himself from the Court but it was under the circumstances mentioned above; and that now he is behind the bars for the last about one year and this ins sufficient period of detention and he is ready to 'furnish heavy surety for his release.
3. Conversely learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition on the ground that he remained absconder for sufficient time and his this conduct disentitles him to the discretionary relief of bail; and that challan against him has been submitted in the Court.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with the help of available record.
5. Though the petitioner was declared absconder but it is admitted position that he was arrested on 23-8-2001 in execution of warrant of arrest issued against him. He, thus, is behind the bars for the period of last about one year. He has explained the cause of his absence from the trial Court and that is that he had gone to Karachi for labour and so he did not receive any intimation of the submission of challan. It has been contended that his absence from the trial Court was not intentional and rather under the circumstances beyond his control.
6. Anyway, he was arrested in execution of warrant of arrest and is behind the bars for the last about one year, which is sufficient period, to ensure his presence before the trial Court, the heavy amount of sure can serve the purpose.
7. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.