Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2208/B of 1976, decided on 28th June 1976.

S. 498‑Petitioner deliberately avoiding to join Police investigation since grant of pre‑arrest interim bail‑Order recalled in circumstances of case

Petitioner in person.

Muhammad Anwar Ahmad Khan for the State.

Muhammad Shafi, petitioner, was allowed ad interim bail vide my order dated l0th of June, 1976 when it was submitted before me that on the date, when his bail application was rejected by the learned Addition al Sessions judge he could not reach the Court because his bus reached late on that day. It was also controverted that the petitioner has not joined the pc lice investigation. therefore, the observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was in correct.

2. Ch. Muhammad Siddiq, the learned counsel for the petitioner, is not present today despite this case has been called several times ant' Muhammad Shafi petitioner has informed me that he has gone to attend the Court of the learned Sessions Judge. If this information is correct, I am constrained to observe that the learned counsel should have shown more respect to the High 'court which is a Court of superior jurisdiction than the Court of the Sessions Judge and should have shown at least this much courtesy to apprise this Court early in the morning of the situation with which he was confronted. However, I will deal with the case on merits without being influenced with the lapse of the learned counsel in this matter. A separate notice will be issued to him regarding his wilful absence from this Court without intimating the Court of the same.

3. The Investigating Officer is present in Court and has submitted that Muhammad Shafi, petitioner, has failed to join the police investigation and also wilfully absented himself on the day when he was to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of pre‑arrest bail which is an extraordinary concession allowed to persons of good social status or against whom, mala fide proceedings have been initiated.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that Muhammad Shafi's son was allowed bail after arrest when he had joined the investigation and not earlier. Therefore, the case of Muhammad Shafi, does not stand at par with that of his son. The learned counsel further sub mitted that a copy of the F. I. R. supplied to him by the petitioner through his learned counsel is also incorrect copy not in accordance with the original F. I. R.

5. I have given my anxious thought to all these contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State and by the Investigating. Officer now present in Court, and have also gone though my earlier order dated l0th of June, 1976, which will be read in continuation of this order in which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made his submissions. As far as the absence of the petitioner on the date of heating was concerned, I do not find that there was any direction by the learn.:'. Additional Sessions Judge to the petitioner to make himself available on the next date of hearing but the conduct of the petitioner in not joining the police and making himself scarce all the time cannot be ignored. In view of the allegations contained in the F. I. R. and the statement made by the Investigation Officer supported by the learned counsel for the State I recall my order of bail before arrest earlier granted to him. He is present in Court. He will. Be. Taken into custody forthwith.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.