Absconsion of accused

Allegation against the accused-petitioner was that he along with his co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which one person died whereas two sustained firearm injuries

Allegedly, the petitioner remained an absconder in this case

When a person is named as a murderer in a case, whether rightly or wrongly, he usually becomes scared and tries to conceal himself in order to avoid possible police torture and detention, therefore, mere abscondence of an accused by itself is not sufficient to maintain his conviction and sentence in absence of other reliable evidence

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and was allowed accordingly, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge.

Abscondment of an accused is a corroborative piece of evidence and in cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons and caused injuries to a female of complainant party by firing

Appellant was declared as a proclaimed offender in the present case, but it was observed that the warrant of arrest was not addressed to any specific Police Officer for execution, which reflected a violation of a mandatory requirement of law

Execution report of the warrant of arrest also failed to disclose the details of the steps undertaken by the Police Officer to effect the arrest of the appellant

No written statement of the Court was available on the record to confirm that the proclamation was duly published on a specified date, as mandated under S.87(3) of the Code

In view of the foregoing, it could be safely concluded that the due process of law, as prescribed under the relevant legal provisions, was not duly followed in declaring the appellant as proclaimed offender

Even otherwise, abscondence, by itself, did not amount to proof of the guilt of the accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case against the appellate beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

It was strange and astonishing that neither the appellant reported the matter to the police authorities nor participated in the last rites of the deceased

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

As per record, the appellant remained absconder for considerable long time till his arrest on 26.10.2015, and he failed to explain the same

Abscondance alone is not sufficient for holding an accused guilty, but once the prosecution succeed in bringing home guilt against the accused, then abscondance canbe taken into consideration

As in this particular case on one hand, the witnesses established their presence on the spot, whereas, on the other, appellant's long unexplained abscondence was a circumstance which could be taken into consideration

Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, accordingly.

Abscondance would not be sufficient for holding an accused guilty, but once the prosecution succeeded in connecting the accused with the offence charged for, and once the prosecution succeeded in collecting reliable evidence on file, then the unexplained abscondance could be taken into consideration

In the present case, the appellant was the husband of the deceased and soon after the tragic death of the deceased, he left the spot till his arrest, so the conduct he displayed was another circumstance, which could be taken into consideration in favour of the prosecution

Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the appellant

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the brother of complainant and also causing firearm injuries to his father

Accused/appellant remained absconder for a sufficient long time, but abscondence alone was not sufficient for holding an accused guilty, rather it was a circumstance which could be weighed against the accused charged, but only when the prosecution otherwise succeeded in proving its case

As the prosecution failed to bring home guilt against the accused charged by producing trustworthy and confidence inspiring witnesses, so such piece of evidence could not be pressed into service to favour the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Inspector claimed that on 19.11.2004 he submitted an application before the Area Magistrate for obtaining non-bailable warrants of arrest of appellant, and non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against him he then on 26.11.2004 vide an application obtained proclamations under S.87, Cr.P.C, of the appellant

During his statement, witness sated that documents, applications, warrants of arrest and proclamations regarding which he gave evidence were not with him at present time and were also not in the file

Therefore when the prosecution failed to produce any required evidencing comprising of warrants and the proclamations, the fact of the appellant/ accused absconding stood not proved

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Value of absconsion depends on the facts of each case.

Case of the prosecution that after the occurrence, the accused and co-accused had disappeared and were declared as proclaimed offenders

Accused was subsequently arrested, whereas, co-accused was still wanted

Even if it was presumed that the abscondance of accused had not been proved in accordance with law, even then his long disappearance and avoiding process of justice was a hurdle in his way and could be used as corroboration to the ocular account

Accused could not explain his long disappearance of about 11 years

Accused also could not dispute his date of arrest as stated by the Investigating Officer

Circumstances established that the prosecution had established its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly dismissed.

In cases where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail and utility, as in the present case, where the evidence of a sole eye-witness had been disbelieved

Needless to say that abscondence can neither cure the inherent defect of the ocular account nor by itself is sufficient to sustain conviction

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed accordingly.

Accused was charged that he along with co-accused in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the son of complainant by firing

Record showed that accused remained absconder

However, mere abscondence of accused was not a conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused

Value of abscondence depended upon the fact of each case and abscondence alone cannot take the place of guilt unless and until the case is otherwise proved on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence

Circumstances established that prosecution had not been able to establish the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Accused were charged that they in furtherance of common intention committed murder of the brother of the complainant by inflicting hatchet blows

Record showed that accused remained absconders, however, when question was put to them about their abscondence, they categorically denied the same and both unanimously stated that fake reports were prepared by the police and in fact they were never informed by the police regarding the said proceedings

However, mere abscondence of accused is not a conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused

Value of abscondence depends upon the fact of each case and abscondence alone cannot take the place of guilt unless and until the case is otherwise proved on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence

Accused persons generally disappear due to fear of police or because of feelings of guilt, and in this case during cross examination accused put the apprehension of their fake police encounter because son of the deceased was a police man, therefore, mere abscondence would not be taken as a conclusive proof of guilt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

However, in the light of the statement of the Investigating Officer, and a Constable, it could not be said that the requirements of declaring a person as a proclaimed offender were met

Investigating Officer did not depose a single word that non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation were issued against the accused

Admittedly, Police Constable had not stated that when non-bailable warrant of arrest and proclamation was issued and handed over to him

However, the factum of absconding, even if established, could only be used as corroborative evidence and was not a substantive piece of evidence

Mere absconsion was not proof of the guilt of an accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused sought pre-arrest bail with the contention that the injured had received firearm injury on non-vital part of his body and fire shot was not repeated

Prima facie, case of accused fell within the mischief of S. 324, P.P.C. hit by statutory prohibition, in view whereof, accused could not be released on bail in the absence of any consideration within the purview of sub-section (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C

Murderous assault as defined in S. 324, P.P.C, did not draw any anatomical distinction between vital and non-vital parts of human body

Once the trigger was pressed and the victim was effectively targeted, "intention or knowledge" as contemplated by S. 324, P.P.C, was manifested; the course of a bullet was not controlled or steered by assailant's choice nor could he claim any premium for a poor marksmanship

Ocular evidence was corroborated by the medical evidence

After commission of the offence, the accused had absconded away during investigation

Deeper appreciation of evidence/material was not permissible at bail stage, as at such stage only tentative assessment of material was to be made

Accused was not entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail

Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mere absconsion cannot be made a ground to discard the relief sought for as disappearance of a person after the occurrence is but natural if he is involved in a murder case rightly or wrongly.

Attempt was made to convince the Court that the long abscondance of the accused persons was a sufficient factor to help in their conviction, but abscondance was a circumstance which could be of benefit to the prosecution, provided the prosecution succeeded in establishing its case against the accused, but when the prosecution was lacking evidence, then abscondance had little role to play

In case in hand, as the witnesses could not succeed in establishing their presence on the spot and the mode and manner was still shrouded in mystery, so the abscondance could not be taken into consideration, that too, to convict the accused persons

Appeal against conviction of accused was allowed accordingly.

Allegation against accused was that he along with others fired at the brother of complainant as a result of which he died at the spot

Accused along with co-accused was directly charged with specific role of firing at the deceased in a promptly lodged report by the complainant eliminating the possibility of consultation and deliberation in making report

Being a broad day light occurrence, question of mistaken identity also did not arise

Version of complainant was substantiated by an eye-witness in his statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Absconsion of accused for more than two years corroborated the ocular version of the prosecution

Acquittal of co-accused, as pointed out by the accused, alone could not be made a ground for his release on bail as evidence which was to be led against the accused was to be appreciated and looked into independently

On tentative assessment of the material available on record, reasonable grounds existed which prima facie connected the petitioner with the commission of offence which entailed capital punishment and fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Abscondance alone was not sufficient to burden an accused with the liability, but the same could be taken into consideration in favour of the prosecution provided the prosecution succeeded in bringing home guilt against the accused charged

As the prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused through confidence inspiring witnesses, so the long unexplained abscondance could be taken as an additional ground to favour the prosecution

Circumstances established that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case, however discrepancies in the prosecution case and the uncertain cause of death led the court to hold that the awarded sentence was a bit harsh and the same needed interference, therefore death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life

Appeal was partially allowed with modification in sentence. [Para. 15 of the judgment]

However, abscondence per se had never been considered a proof of guilt, therefore, that factor alone could not base conviction of the accused when prosecution had otherwise failed to establish his guilt through trustworthy ocular account and circumstantial evidence of convincing nature

Circumstances established that prosecution had not proved the guilt of accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed.

Prosecution case was that after the occurrence, accused persons and their co-accused had disappeared and was declared as proclaimed offenders

Occurrence took place on 15.03.2016

One of the accused persons was arrested on 27.12.2016 whereas, other accused was apprehended on 18.12.2018

Third accused, who was their real brother was still wanted

Even if it was presumed that the absconding of accused persons had not been proved in accordance with law, even then their long disappearance and avoidance from process of justice was a hurdle in their way and could be used as corroboration to the ocular account

Both accused persons could not explain their long disappearance after the occurrence and they also could not dispute their dates of arrest as stated by the Investigating Officers

Circumstances established that the Trial Court while taking into consideration the evidence from all possible angles rightly proceeded to convict the accused persons

Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Conduct of accused and unexplained absconsion was also corroborative piece of evidence against him to connect him in the case

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt

Motive was not alleged

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, however, sentence of death was reduced to life imprisonment in respect of each murder.

Accused was charged for making firing upon the complainant and his friend, when friend of complainant made joke with him, both received injuries on their abdomen, due to which complainant became injured but his friend died

Record showed that accused disappeared from the scene for about two years

Such circumstance could not be viewed with favour

Long standing absconsion had not been explained by accused in his statement under S. 342, Cr.P.C., which showed his culpability

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused

Appeal against conviction was dismissed but sentence of accused was reduced to imprisonment for life due to mitigating circumstances.

Accused was charged that he along with co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to one person died while complainant sustained injuries

Accused remained an absconder for over two years

Accused did not surrender himself for trial and was arrested in another criminal case before being linked to that case which was not the conduct of an innocent man

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt, however, the prosecution had not been able to prove through evidence the motive for the accused murdering the deceased or attempting to murder complainant

Whether it was the pistol shot of accused which caused the fatal wound on the deceased which caused his death was not clear

Death sentence of the accused was reduced to one of life imprisonment

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Allegation against accused was that he along with other nominated or unknown but identifiable co-accused persons came to the business place of complainant's brother and caused him firearm injuries as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries

Delay in lodging FIR was natural and the same was plausibly explained within the body of FIR

Accused had remained absconder for more than four years

Accused was associated with a proscribed organization, which was involved in sectarian terrorism

Motive for the murder was alleged to be a sectarian dispute

Murder was motivated due to clerical strife and conflict in which the accused and his associates were so desperate that they allegedly did not hesitate to take the life of a person with whom they had no personal grudge or animosity

Absence of complainant from the place of incident made no difference because he had first-hand knowledge of res gestae and had also reported the dying declaration of deceased

Accused was not entitled to the concession of bail

Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Superior courts have recognized the doctrine of fugitive disentitlement to the extent of criminal appeals or related criminal matters

Superior courts have refused to hear appeals filed by absconders in criminal matters on the basis of equitable principles, such as; (i) Courts will not act in aid of injustice; (ii) Courts will not allow abuse of process of Court; (iii) Essential condition of administration of justice that persons concerned should submit to the due process of justice (absconders violate this basic principle of administration of justice); (iv) No one can be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong; (v) Allowing an absconder relief would amount to placing premium on absconsion and will amount to stultification of the authority of the Court by an unlawful act, which obviously cannot be the intention of the law; (vi) Absconsion involves contempt of the process and authority of the Court; (vii) Power of Attorney or petition executed by a fugitive of law is not well constituted and therefore not entertainable; (viii) Absconder loses right to audience before a Court.

In relation to bail, the question of absconsion is a relevant consideration in grant of bail, but refusal of bail to an absconder is not an absolute rule, once he surrenders to the law

Where an absconder is seeking protective bail to be able to surrender before the competent court and provides a reasonable explanation for his abscondence, the court may in its discretion grant transitory bail to uphold the person's right to access to justice.

Accused were charged for committing murder of the son of complainant by making fires at him during the process of robbery

Record showed that after due proceedings under the provisions of Ss. 87 & 88, Cr.P.C., the accused was declared proclaimed offender

Even otherwise the accused throughout the proceedings had not taken a plea that he was not aware about the implication as an accused in the subject case crime

Accused had also neither examined himself on oath to explain and justify his whereabouts for such a long period of more than six years after the incident nor had he examined any person as his witness on that aspect

Such conduct displayed by the accused, who remained fugitive from the law and court for more than six years, without any plausible and reasonable explanation, was also indicative of his guilt when considered in conjunction with the ocular and the other circumstantial evidence

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Absconsion by itself could not be held sufficient for recording conviction on a capital charge, but when other reliable evidence was available with the prosecution, then such a prolonged and unexplained absconsion might safely be taken into account as a corroboratory piece of evidence against an accused

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Accused was charged for committing murder of the nephew of complainant by stabbing and also attempted at the life of witness

Accused remained fugitive from law for almost three years

Accused had offered no plausible explanation in that regard, thus, the said conduct of the accused further corroborated the ocular account and could be considered as corroborative factor of other convincing evidence available on record against him

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused through trustworthy and reliable evidence, therefore, his conviction and sentence by the trial court did not call for any interference

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Neither any plea of the alleged mental sickness was agitated by him in the first round nor even any medical history in that regard was brought before any forum

During trial, it was on the request of the accused pleading some mental ailment, the Medical Board was constituted which declared him to be a normal person

Somehow, within a span of barely seven months, the accused again pleaded to have some mental problem and in turn the second Medical Board was constituted

Subsequent Medical Board included same members except one

However, this time around, the accused was declared to be a patient of bipolar affective disorder and thus not fit to face trial

Keeping in view the conflicting opinions of two Medical Boards and his previous criminal history to be involved in several different FIRs, the accused could not press into service subsection (1) of S. 466, Cr.P.C. for his release on bail

Trial Court had rightly ordered to refer him to the Mental Ward of the Police and Services Hospital and in the meanwhile had adjourned the trial proceedings sine die

Such proceedings could be revived as and when the accused was declared to be fit by the Medical Board after his recovery from such ailment

No case was made out for the grant of bail to the accused on medical grounds

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed.

Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against accused persons through ocular account and other circumstantial evidence of convincing nature

Conviction of the accused could not be recorded solely on the ground of their abscondence which had always been considered as corroborative evidence.

During investigation, accused was declared as Proclaimed Offender and in that context prosecution had produced a Police Official

Absconsion of accused for more than four years was a conduct which was relevant under the law

Accused was duty bound to explain that why he avoided the process of justice for such a long period and where he remained by leaving his ordinary residence

No reasonable explanation could be furnished by the accused in his examination under S.342, Cr.P.C.

Circumstances established that accused had been rightly convicted by the Trial Court

Death penalty was converted into imprisonment for life as the same was extreme penalty, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

As regards issuing threats to his wife, perusal of the police papers showed that during her lifetime, deceased had moved an application in the police station stating that in case of any loss to her life, the accused and her relatives would be responsible

Deceased had also filed an application under S. 491, Cr.P.C. for recovery of her minor children before the Additional Sessions Judge, which showed that there were disputes between the accused and his wife

Name of accused appeared in the FIR and the accused had not uttered a single word as to why he was falsely involved in the case

Investigating Officer had stated that the accused had not joined the investigation after obtaining pre-arrest bail

Accused had remained absconder till the date his application for pre-arrest bail was granted

Application for grant of pre-arrest bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allegation against accused was that he along with another made direct firing upon the complainant as a result of which three persons died and another got injured

Accused was nominated in the FIR with specific role of causing fire arm injury with 44 bore rifle upon the deceased which hit the deceased on his head

Father of accused was also nominated in the FIR who was arrested but the accused had neither surrendered before the police nor had he applied for bail before arrest

Police, on the basis of Call Data Record (CDR), had opined that the accused was not present at the spot and had placed him as accused in Column No. 3 of the challan

Injured witness as well as two other eye-witnesses had nominated the accused with a specific role of causing fatal injury on head of the deceased

Sufficient material was available on record to connect the accused with the crime

Offences with which the accused was charged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused could be granted bail if his case was otherwise made out on merits and his mere absconsion would not come in the way of his bail

Effect of absconsion depended on the facts of each case and bail could be granted if an accused had a good case for bail on merits

Mere absconsion would not deprive him of bail, if otherwise his case was one of "further inquiry" as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Abscondence per se was not sufficient to prove the guilt, but when it would go for a long time for which no reasonable explanation was given by an accused person coupled with other evidence on record, would be the criteria to determine his guilt or innocence and, thus, was a corroborative piece of evidence, therefore, his conduct after the occurrence was indicative of his guilt when considered in juxtaposition with the other evidence produced by the prosecution

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights granted by procedural and substantive law and noticeable absconsion disentitles the absconder to the concession of bail notwithstanding merits of the case.

Incident had occurred in the daylight, so no question arose with regard to misidentification of the culprits, that too when the parties were known to each other

Deceased had multiple injuries on his body and the Investigating Officer had recovered seven empties of 7.62 bore from the spot which lent support to the case of the prosecution

Tractor of the complainant was also taken into possession which had bullet marks on its body and was damaged in which respect S.427, P.P.C., was added, which further supported what the complainant stated

Counsel of accused invited the attention of Court to the fact as to how the complainant escaped unhurt when two of the accused were firing at the tractor simultaneously

Court, while seized of the bail matter had to make tentative assessment and deeper appreciation of evidence was unwarranted, which could prejudice the case of either side

Accused had remained fugitive from law for almost three years and had failed to justify such a long absconsion

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstance.

Complainant although had directly charged three persons for the commission of offence, but no specific role was attributed to the accused

No incriminating articles were shown to have been recovered from the possession of accused

Six crime empties were recovered from the spot but the same were not sent to the Forensic Laboratory, so, it could not be ascertained that the same were fired from one weapon or multiple weapons

Long absconsion of accused held no field when the case of accused fell within the ambit of subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Petition for grant of bail was allowed, in circumstances.

Accused persons were alleged to have intercepted the complainant party and fired at the deceased with intention to kill him

Accused persons were directly charged in the promptly lodged FIR with specific/overt act

Section 302, P.P.C. fell within the ambit of prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C. and eye-witnesses had witnessed the occurrence

Both the parties, being resident of the same locality, were known to each other and there was no question of mistaken identity

One of the accused persons had absconded immediately after the occurrence and had remained fugitive from law for about 4 months, which could also be treated as important piece of evidence against him

Motive behind the occurrence had also been disclosed in the FIR

Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant sought cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to accused on the ground that the accused had been an absconder and that bail had been granted in wrong exercise of discretion by the Trial Court

Held; nothing was available on record to show that the accused was aware about his implication

Accused was not nominated in the FIR with any role but he was subsequently implicated by the complainant in supplementary statement, with improved version of the occurrence

Confirmation of ad-interim pre-arrest bail of the accused by the Trial Court in view of the scope of further inquiry could not be termed as illegal or in wrong exercise of discretion as apart from mala fide and arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment, scope of further inquiry could also be made a basis for grant/confirmation of pre-arrest bail, primarily depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case

Allegation of abusing or misusing the concession of bail by the accused was not supported by affidavit of any witness

Application for cancellation of pre-arrest bail was dismissed.

Absconsion alone cannot be a substitute for real evidence because people do abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of protracted trial and also to avoid duress and torture at the hands of police

Absconsion is a corroborative piece of evidence and in case where direct evidence fails, corroborative piece of evidence is of no avail.

Accused and others were alleged to have indiscriminately fired at the deceased when he along with his relatives was present in the shop of a barber

Case was based on a promptly lodged FIR

Eye-witnesses had reasonably explained their presence at the crime scene by deposing that they had accompanied the deceased to the shop of barber and it was very common in a rural background that relatives and friends accompanied each other to the shops of the barbers

Medical evidence had fully supported the ocular account of the eye-witnesses so far as it related to the injuries attributed to the accused

Statements of witnesses had got due corroboration from the absconsion of accused

High Court observed certain extenuating circumstances such as failure of prosecution to prove motive to the extent of accused and the inability of witnesses to attribute or pinpoint specific injuries to the accused, warranting the award of lesser sentence

Conviction of the accused was maintained, however, his death sentence against conviction was converted into that of imprisonment of life

Appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Accused and co-accused were booked in the FIR with a specific role of causing injuries to the victim but co-accused was released by the local police under S. 169, Cr.P.C.

Accused had went underground after commission of offence and had remained absconder for a period of about 02 years and 08 months

Mere absconsion of the accused did not come in the way, when case of accused was one of further inquiry

Case of accused was one of further inquiry

Accused was admitted to post-arrest bail.

Absconsion had to be read along with substantive piece of evidence.

Abscondence is only a corroborative piece of evidence and never considered in isolation.

Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence is committed, rash and negligent act, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Contradictory/ improved statement of the prosecution witness

Effect

Absconsion of accused

Effect

Petitioner contended that mere presence with fire arm was alleged against him

Complainant contended that petitioner being an absconder , was not entitled to the concession of bail while the trial had also commenced

Except the mere presence with a firearm alongside the co-accused, no specific role was attributed to the petitioner

Neither in the FIR nor in the deposition of the complainant and one eye-witness, petitioner had been attributed any shot fired upon the deceased

Deposition of other eye-witness (brother of the complainant) that the petitioner fired at the deceased, contradicted by prosecution witnesses

Question as to whether the said eye-witnesses had arrived at the scene of crime after the fire shots or before, was yet to be established

Petitioner was brother of the other co-accused (who had fired at the deceased), thus spreading the net wide by the complainant to falsely entangle the petitioner in the case, was a possibility which could not be ruled out at bail stage

Trial had commenced and statements of the main prosecution witnesses had been recorded thus, physical custody of the petitioner was no longer required and continuous incarceration of the petitioner would serve no beneficial purpose

Mere absconsion of the petitioner and commencement of trial, would not be taken as bar if the accused had made out his case for the concession of bail

Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry as envisaged under S.497(2), Cr.P.C.

Bail application was allowed in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, abettor present when offence committed, criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, transportation or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upward, criminal intimidation if threat to cause death or grievous hurt etc., rioting, unlawful assembly

Bail, grant of

Accused (petitioner) was not nominated in the FIR

Absconsion of accused

Scope

Mere presence of the accused at place of occurrence

Effect

Record revealed that role of causing fire arm injuries to the deceased was attributed to the co-accused

Name of the accused had not been mentioned in the FIR rather his name had been disclosed by the prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.

Accused was under custody and investigation of the case had been completed and Challan had been submitted

Physical custody of the accused was not required for the purpose of investigation

Concession of bail ought not be withheld by way of premature punishment

If the accused had good case for grant of bail on merits, his absconsion would not come in way while granting him bail

Case of the accused called for further inquiry as envisaged under S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.

Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

Mere abscondence would not entail penal consequences against the accused.