Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
P L D 1981 Supreme Court 93
Rao QADEER KHAN-Petitioner
versus
THB STATE-Respondent
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 515 to 522 of 1980, decided on 27th October 1980.
(On appeal from order dated 21-9-1980 of the Lahore High Court).
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-.
- Ss. 497(1) & 498-Bail-Fact of petitioner having absconded prima facie established-Absconsion being of such period and type as to disentitle petitioner to concession of bail whether case falls within prohibitory or other field of subsection (1) of S. 497 read with S. 498 Conduct of petitioner by making repeated application for anticipatory bail, trying to gain advantage thereunder and then absenting for period of time, held, amounted to abuse of process of Court and disentitled petitioner to discretionary relief of bail-Petitioner's case, even on merits, held further, not fit for grant of bail.-[Abscondence Abuse of process of Court].
B. A, Saleemi, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramdey, Additional Advocate-General (Punjab) and Sh. Ijaz All, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Muhammad Ashraf Ealahi, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.
Date of hearing : 27th October 1980.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Through these Criminal Petitions (Nos. 515 to 522 of 1980) leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 21-9-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's request for bail in several cases of fraud/forgery, misappropriation and like offences was refused on the grounds of merits, abscondence and conduct of the petitioner.
Learned counsel has contended that out of three approvers only two involved the petitioner and that aspect too would not bear scrutiny, inter alga, for reason of attempt at self-exculpation; that the offence, if any, would not be beyond section 420, P. P. C. that there is no independent documentary evidence against the petitioner; that the petitioner is not mentioned as an accused by the informant in the F. I. R. of an earlier connected case; and even if his name was mentioned as culprit by other persons, during the investigation leading to discovery of the present set of cases against the petitioner and others; it would not make any difference for him; and that some of the co-accused of the petitioner have been released on bail. Learned counsel also urged similar other grounds taken in the petition, and tried to explain away the conduct of the petitioner including abscondence, which was subject-matter of adverse comment by the learned trial Judge and the High Court.
We have examined the grounds urged by him. It stands prima facie established that the petitioner was an absconder. This would be so even if the explanation offered from the petitioner's side is taken into consideration. The abscondence is of such period and type that the petitioner has disentitled himself to the concession of bail, whether the case falls within the prohibitory or other field of subsection (1) of section 497 read with 498, Cr. P. C.
We are also in agreement with the learned Courts below that the conduct of the petitioner by making repeated applications for anticipatory bail, trying to gain advantage thereunder and then absenting for periods of time, amounted to abuse of the process of law and Court. It disentitled the petitioner to the discretionary relief.
The above-noted considerations, jointly and severally, are enough to dismiss this petition. However, after examining the merits also the petitioner' case is not found fit for grant of bail, nor is fit for leave to appeal. These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer