Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 222‑B of 1983, decided on 2nd March 1981

‑‑S. 497‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 406/467/420‑Bail, grant of‑Petitioner absenting himself from trial Court for one year and refused bail by courts below‑Petitioner, however, appearing before trial Court voluntarily and lodged in Jail for fast one month‑Petitioner, held, sufficiently punished in circum stances‑‑Bail allowed. [p. 2600]A

Arshad Hussain Jafary for Petitioner.

Zulfiqar Ishaq Lodhi assisted by Akhtar Rehman Khan for the State.

This is an application for bail on behalf of Zaheer Ahmad petitioner in a case under section 406/467/420, P. P. C. registered at P. S. Haram Gate, Multan vide F. I. R. No. 22, dated 7th January, 1981.

2. The petitioner was arrested by the police. He was allowed bail by the trial Court on 17th January, 1981. He continued appearing before the Court till 24th January, 1982 but absented himself on 3rd February, 1982 when non‑bailable warrants for his arrest were issued by the learned trial Court. Thereafter he did not appear before the Court for one year. On 6th January, 1983, he appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan and applied for his pre‑arrest bail. He was allowed interim bail till 1lth January, 1983 with the direction that he would appear before the trial Court on the said date. On 2nd February, 1983, he was, however, taken into custody by the trial Court. He then moved the trial Court as well as the learned Sessions Judge but the bail was refused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner was not intentional whereas the learned counsel for the State assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has seriously opposed this application on the ground that the petitioner having misused the con cession of bail by absenting himself for about one year is not entitled to the same and in case he is allowed bail he may again abscond.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that as for merits, the petitioner was allowed bail after arrest by the trial Court. As for the abuse of the concession of bail, I am of the opinion that is very much there but despite that I am inclined to grant him bail for the reason that he voluntarily appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and moved application for his pre‑arrest bail and thereafter he did appear before the trial Court. Furthermore, he is in jail‑ for the last one month. To my mind this is sufficient extra punishment, he shall be released on bail provi ded he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with one suerty in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.

S. G. D. Bail granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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