Absence of accused

2022 MLD 403 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 498 & 498-APre-arrest bailAbsence of accusedScopeAccused who is released on interim pre-arrest bail must attend the court on each and every date

Presence of accused is required throughout the proceedings of the pre-arrest bail application and the fact that he appeared on the first date when ad interim bail was granted does not in any manner lessen the rigours of S. 498-A, Cr.P.C., or absolve the responsibility of the accused from appearing in person before the court

Application was dismissed for non-production.

2020 PCrLJ 461 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 410AppealAbsence of accusedScope

Appeal against conviction, filed by counsel of convict, is not maintainable without surrendering the convict before the court

Appeal in absentia is not maintainable.

2018 YLR 323 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 498Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471Cheating and forgeryPre-arrest bail, confirmation ofAbsence of accusedEffectAccused was arrested during pendency of pre-arrest bail, in some other case and he was not present before the courtPlea raised by complainant was that due to arrest of accused petition had become infructuousValidity

Withholding of concession of pre-arrest bail particularly when absence of accused at time of confirmation of his ad-interim bail was not willful and he was represented through counsel, same would not serve ends of justice

Complainant, during investigation, could not produce evidence to prove his claim of advancing huge amount of Rs. 1,81,00,000/- to accused and despite lapse of three years he did not approach civil court for recovery of the amount

Proposed arrest of accused was motivated by illwill and mala fide of complainant and local police

Pre-arrest bail was confirmed in circumstances.

2015 PCrLJ 1473 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 498-APre-arrest bailAbsence of accusedEffect

No Court is authorized to release a person by grant of pre-arrest bail, who is not present when his petition is called and heard

Physical presence of accused is not only be insisted upon purely as a matter of propriety but is a statutory pre-condition for grant of pre-arrest bail.

2015 PCrLJ 1473 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 498 & 498-APenal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-FDishonoring of chequePre-arrest bail, grant ofAbsence of accusedTrial Court declined pre-arrest bail to accused due to his absence at the time of hearing of bail applicationValidity

Act of accused not appearing before Court of first instance when his petition seeking pre-arrest bail was being heard had a direct effect on the outcome of the case

Accused by not appearing in person before Trial Court had disentitled himself for the grant of pre-arrest bail by High Court

Although accused was charged with offence which carried maximum punishment of three years imprisonment and did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. would not entitle the accused to grant of pre-arrest bail as of right

Pre-arrest bail was declined, in circumstances.

2013 PCrLJ 499 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.302(b)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.47Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.353 & 512Qatl-e-amdAppreciation of evidenceAbsence of accusedEvidence, recording of

Trial Court relying on evidence recorded under S.512, Cr.P.C., convicted accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Validity

Accused was charged with offence which carried capital punishment and he could not be stripped of his valuable right of a fair and impartial trial, else the same would negate concept of due process of law, as fair trial was right of every accused

Co-accused were present at the time of taking evidence of prosecution witnesses and accused was also entitled for the same treatment after his arrest

Provisions of S.353 Cr.P.C. were mandatory in nature and taking of evidence of prosecution witnesses in absence of accused vitiated trial

Every Trial Court was empowered to believe evidence of all witnesses recorded in absence of accused, provided on arrest of accused, such witness was found dead or incapable of giving evidence or his attendance could not be procured without an amount of delay or expense

Complainant party was contesting the case in spite of that Trial Court adopted illegal procedure by allowing prosecution to rely upon same evidence, which was taken in absence of accused

Conviction and sentence awarded to accused on the basis of such evidence was not sustainable in law and the same was set aside

High Court directed Trial Court to take evidence of prosecution witnesses afresh, in presence of accused persons and case was remanded

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2011 SCMR 1736 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.426Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9(c)Recovery of narcoticsSuspension of sentenceAbsence of accused

Alleged recovery of 56 kilograms of Chars was made in the absence of accused at the instance of another accused already in custody in some other case

Date, time and place of arrest of accused was not shown with certainty by police

Site plan also did not show that place of recovery had two exits

Effect

Considering it a fit case for reappraisal of entire evidence, Supreme Court converted petition into appeal and sentence of life imprisonment awarded to both the accused was suspended and they were released on bail

Petition was allowed.