1999 PLP 2680 (YLR)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.498‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail ‑‑‑Essentials‑‑‑Non- appearance of accused before Trial Court during trial‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Provisions of S.498, Cr. P. C. are not at all meant to provide relief to an accused person who does not cooperate in the trial‑‑‑Relief of anticipatory bail is granted to a person to save him from an arbitrary arrest or detention out of some ulterior motives‑‑‑Where a Court of competent jurisdiction has withdrawn or cancelled the bail and has issued warrants for arrest of the accused, pre‑arrest bail cannot ordinarily be granted. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.497/498‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 468, 471 & 420‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail, grant of‑‑‑Essentials‑‑‑Accused absented from Trial Court during trial‑‑‑Bail of accused was withdrawn by Trial Court, proceedings against surety were initiated and warrant of arrest of the accused was issued‑‑ Validity ‑‑‑Mala fides was an essential ingre dient for grant of extraordinary relief of pre -arrest bail‑‑‑No mala fide act having been attributed to the Trial Court, the order of issuance of warrant for arrest of the accused was proper and justified‑‑‑Pre‑arrest bail was not granted in circumstances. Malik Muhammad Akram Awan for Petitioner. Pre‑arrest bail has been sought by Syed Ghulam Abbas Shah in case F.I.R. No.16/95, dated 9‑4‑1995 registered with P.S. A.C.E., Sargodha under sections 409, 468, 471, 420, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) 47, P.C.A. The petitioner had in fact been admitted to bail by the learned trial Judge and the case was fixed for 3‑2‑1999. The petitioner failed to appear in Court, consequently his bail was cancelled and non -bailable warrants for his arrest were issued. Notices were issued to the sureties as well. The case was adjourned to 17‑2‑1999 It is argued that in fact the petitioner was suffering from various ailments including heart ailment and a copy of certificate, dated 2‑2‑1999 issued one day before the date of hearing has been placed on the file showing that the petitioner required bed rest for three days. Even if this certificate is accepted to be correct, the petitioner could have moved the learned trial Court from 6‑2‑1999 up to 17‑2‑1999, but nothing was done in that behalf. This application was moved on 2‑4‑1999 and was fixed for 5‑4‑1999. The main plea of the learned counsel is that the petitioner could not appear on account of his illness or ailment but his own document negates his plea whereby the doctor advised him rest for three days w.e.f. 3‑2‑1999. No explanation has been tendered as to why he did not appear after 6‑2‑1999. I am therefore, constrained to observe that a tendency has developed that the accused person after obtaining bail does not cooperate in the trial and get the trial prolonged on one pretext or the other. The petitioner who failed to appear ~ in Court did not even submit any application on that date. The learned trial Judge was therefore, justified in withdrawing his bail and to issue warrants to procure his attendance. It is almost taken for granted that after committing default before the trial Court, an interim bail will be obtained from the higher Court and as such to frustrate the process issued by the learned trial Court. To regulate and conduct the trial is the function of the learned trial Judge and no interference should ordinarily be made in the interim orders passed by him unless it is observed that the order is either perverse or arbitrary. In the instant case the petitioner from 3‑2‑1999 up to 5‑4‑1999 managed to escape his arrest and even did not appear himself before the learned trial Court. Provisions of section 49,8, Cr.P.C are not at all meant to provide relief to an accused person who does not cooperate in the trial. Relief of anticipatory bail is granted to a person to save him from an arbitrary arrest or detention out of some ulterior motives. Pre‑arrest bail cannot ordinarily be granted where a Court of competent jurisdiction has withdrawn or cancelled the bail and have issued warrants for his arrest. Considering the conduct of the present petitioner, the order of the learned trial Judge appears to be proper and justified. No mala fides could be attributed to the learned trial Judge which is an essential ingredient for grant of extraordinary relief of pre‑arrest bail. This application being without merit is dismissed. Copy of the order shall be conveyed to the learned trial Judge. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G‑124/L Pre‑arrest bail refused.