1. ' ZIA PERWAZ, J.--- Criminal Bail Applications Nos.1083 of 2004 and 1110 of 2004 arise out of the same F.I.R. No,129 of 2004, registered with Police Station Kunri, District Mirpurkhas on 24-10-2004.
2. According to the contents of the F.I.R. Lodged by the complainant, his wife, accused/applicant Mst.
3. Rubina had developed illicit terms with accused Adam and despite his best efforts the matter could not be-resolved. On 12-10-2004, the applicant/accused Adam, armed with a shotgun, accompanied by accused/applicants Arbab and Bachay, armed with Lathis, Ghulam alias Guloo, armed with hatchet, along with some other persons, went to the house of complainant in a jeep and asked Mst. Rubina, accused/applicant, to go with him. The accused/applicant Mst. Rubina sat in the jeep and went away with them, "The complainant raised commotion which attracted other people who saw the incident. The complainant tried to solve the matter through his community but all his efforts went in vain. When the complainant came to know that accused Adam has married with accused Rubina unlawfully, he lodged the above F . I. R.
4. ' Before filing of the present bail applications, the applicants and co-accused had earlier moved Criminal Bail Application No,770 of 2004 before the Circuit Bench of this Court at Hyderabad while the application was pending the present bail applications were filed at the Registry. The factum of filing of the earlier bail application before the Circuit Bench of this Court at Hyderabad was not disclosed in these applications rather a statement was made that no bail application had been filed in this Court.
5. ' Mr. M.A. Qazi, learned counsel for the applicants, has contended that the applicants have been falsely involved in this case and due to apprehension of humiliation at the hands of the police and due to imminent threat of grave injury they could not approach learned trial Court in the first instance and have approached this Court for bail before arrest. Regarding earlier bail application before the Circuit Bench at Hyderabad for seeking protective bail, learned counsel stated that the applicants did not instruct the learned counsel to move the application on their behalf and the same was withdrawn after grant of ad interim bail, therefore, the case may be disposed of in view of the facts narrated in the instant bail applications. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the cases of Raees Wazir Ahmed v. The State 2004 SCM R 1167, Abdul. Rasheed v. The State PLD 2003 ,Kar. 682; Meeran Bux v. The State PLD 1989 SC 347; The State v. Zubair and 4 others PLD 1986 SC 173; Muhammad Riaz v. The State 2002,SCM R 184; Ali Hassan v. The State 2001 SCM R 1047; Mst. Rukhsana Kausar v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1742 and Mumtaz Hussain v. The State 2004 PCr.LJ 492.
6. ' The applications are opposed by the prosecution. It has been argued that the applicants have approached this Court after concealment of fact of earlier bail application moved before the Circuit Court at Hyderabad. The application was supported by the affidavits of the applicants sworn before the Hyderabad Circuit Bench. That the applicants after obtaining ad interim bail before arrest have misused the concession by not appearing before the learned trial Court from where bailable warrants were issued. That the applicants were being represented before the learned trial Court at Mirpurkhas by the same counsel Mr. Muhammad Shafi Kashmiri, who moved their bail application before the Circuit Court at Hyderabad. That when objection pertaining to issuance of non-bailable warrants was taken up before this Court at the time of hearing of the bail application, the applicants filed copy of the order showing there first appearance only when the matter was agitated before this Court on 30-11-2005. Under the circumstances the conduct of the present applicants disentitle them for the concession of bail before arrest.
7. ' It have perused the material available on record. File of Criminal Bail Application No,770 of 2004 has also been called from Hyderabad Circuit Bench. It appears that the first bail application was presented on 29-10-2004 before the Circuit Court at Hyderabad showing names of all eight applicants i,e, (1) Adam, (2) Arbab, (3) Bachayo, (4) Jano, (5) Gullo, (6) Alam, (7) Shafi and (8) Mst.
8. Rubina Naz. While this application was pending, the Bail Application No,1083 of 2004 was moved before the Principal Seat at Karachi on 10-11-2004 concealing the fact of filing of the earlier bail application. Subsequently on 22-11-2004 Mr. Shafi, requested before the Circuit Court at Hyderabad for withdrawal of the application when following order was passed:-- "Mr. Muhammad Shafi Kashmiri, Advocate states that the applicant would first approach the learned trial Court and in view of certain development he does not press this application for protective bail. Application is dismissed as not pressed."
9. ' While doing so, learned counsel did not disclose the fact of the applicants having approached the Court or having already obtained relief and the fact of pendency of Criminal Bail Application No,1083 of 2004 and it was not brought to the notice of the Court when the Application No,770 of 2004 was withdrawn before the Circuit Court at Hyderabad. Likewise Criminal Bail Application No,1110 of 2004 was filed without bringing these facts to the notice of the Court at Karachi. The applicants after obtaining the bail are expected to appear before the learned trial Court but in the instant case the case was fixed before the learned trial Court on various dates but they remained absconders and the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Umerkot ordered for issue of their non- bailable warrants in Session Case No,22 of 2005 under the circumstances the question of adverse effect in the investigation can also not be ruled out. The diary sheet reveals that non-bailable warrants for arrest of accused Adam, Mst. Rubina, Bachayo, Arbab, Ghulam Muhammad alias Gullo and Alam were issued on 16-4-2005. The same state of affairs continued when the case came up before the learned trial Court on 12-7-2005, 3-8-2005, 31-8-2005, 27-9-2005 till the matter was brought to the notice of this Court during arguments on 28-11-2005 when the applicants made appearance before the learned trial Court. There is ample material to support the abuse of process of the Court by the applicants by filing successive bail applications without disclosing earlier bail applications. They absconded after obtaining ad interim bail and did not appear before the learned trial Court despite the fact that after obtaining the bail it is the duty of the accused to present himself before the learned trial Court and the adverse effect on investigation due to non- joining of the accused with the investigation after obtaining ad interim bail cannot be condoned and the Courts always take a serious view of deliberate abscondence as in this case the applicants did. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are not attracted in the circumstances of the present case. As such the case does not call for any indulgence. These bail applications are accordingly dismissed the ad interim bail already granted is withdrawn.
10. ' The listed applications stand disposed of in view of the above.
11. Pre-arrest .