Abscondment of accused

Mere absconsion cannot be a ground to discard the relief sought for as it is established principle of law that disappearance of a person after the occurrence is natural if he is involved in a murder case, rightly or wrongly

Mere absconsion is not a proof of guilt, hence, cannot be made sole ground to discard the relief sought for.

Value of abscondment, therefore, depended on the facts of each case and bail could be granted if an accused had good case for bail on merits

Mere abscondment would not deprive an accused of bail.

Absconsion per se could not be made basis for refusal of bail in the absence of any overt act which had contributed towards commission of the offence.

Person absconding after an occurrence and declared as a proclaimed offender may lose his claim to exercise of discretion in his favour by a court of law on the basis of propriety but at the same time it was equally true that an accused person involved in a case calling for further inquiry into his guilt was to be admitted to bail as a matter of right

Whenever a question of propriety was confronted with a question of right the latter must prevail.

Abscondment should not come in the way for refusal of bail and same could not be made a ground for cancellation of bail.

Mere abscondment of accused would not create any hurdle in the way of bail, if otherwise, he was entitled to concession of bail.

Bail could be granted if the accused had a good case for grant of bail on merits and his abscondment would not come in the way while granting him bail.

Accused could not be refused bail only on the ground of his abscondment, if he otherwise had made out a case for grant of bail.