2004 PLP 1933 (MLD)

To be brief on the facts, the F.I.R. No.142 of 1996, dated 18-5-1996 was got registered by one Manzoor Ahmad son of Fateh Din with Police Station Sadar Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar under section 364, P.P.C. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was granted bail after arrest with one Muhammad Akram by the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar on 10-10-1996. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the aforesaid bail from Sessions Court was withdrawn as the petitioner had absented himself from the proceedings of the case, on account of alleged registration of another F.I.R. In which he was arrested. According to the learned counsel the petitioner had been an absconder for a period of 1 year and 3 months and is behind the bars since 1 year and 5 months. The learned counsel argues that this period of detention extending to 1 year and 5 months be considered sufficient period for his release on bail as the period for absconding was only to the extent of one year and three months. In other words the learned counsel has made a comparison on the basis of which he wants to get the benefit of bail for the petitioner.

2. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel and perused the record and contentions of the learned counsel for the State.

3. It is correct that the bail was granted on merits to the petitioner on 10-10-1996 by the learned Sessions Judge but the registration of second F.I.R. And his period of absconding till his arrest on 9-2-2002 speaks against the grant of concession of bail to the accused. He had been absconding for One year and three months which was his own act and for which he could not be granted concession. This act of the petitioner could not grant him any benefit as he was fugitive from the justice and this period gives adverse presumption qua the petitioner's innocence. The case before the learned trial Court has already commenced and it has been informed by the learned State counsel that the case is near completion. At this stage the grant of bail would hamper the trial of the case, which is stated to be running smoothly. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to PLD 1998 SC 1 (Hakim Ali Zardari v. The State and another). The learned counsel has failed to point out as to how the aforesaid citation was applicable to the facts of the present case. Another ruling from the august Supreme Court, 2002 SCMR 282 (Muhammad Saeed Mandi v. The State and 2 others) is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. There is no cavil to the proposition that the object of criminal trial is to make the accused face the trial and not to punish the under-trial prisoner. In that case it was held that expeditious access to justice is the right of the accused. In the instance case, in fact, the petitioner is kept behind the bar for the prompt disposal of the case: The other cases referred are: 1989 PCr.LJ 2354 (Akhtar Khan v. The State) 1983 PCr.LJ 2600 (Zaheer Ahmad v. The State) 1991 SCMR 322 (The State v. Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan) (supra) clearly deposes against the version of the petitioner. In that authority, it has not been held that fugitive from law under all the circumstances must be enlarged on bail. All the rulings referred above has got no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. It is ruling principle of law that in bail matters each case has to be considered upon its own facts.

4. Considering these facts, I uphold the order dated 18-7-2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar in which concession of bail to the petitioner was not extended. The instant criminal miscellaneous is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M-592/L Bail application dismissed.