' M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, J.---The supra titled revision petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 7-2-2014, recorded by District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, whereby an application moved by complainant-petitioner for cancellation of bail of accused respondent was dismissed.
2. The facts precisely stated are that Iftikhar Ahmad, complainant, lodged a report at Police Station Nar on 20.12.2012, alleging therein that he was proceeding towards Bazaar from his house but on the way Mohib, accused, who came by riding on a Prado vehicle, stopped him and inflicted two knife blows on left side of his chin and backside of his head. After sustaining injuries, he fell down and accused fled away from the spot by riding on vehicle. The accused committed crime on the behest of his father, Raja Aghaz Khan. The occurrence was witnessed by Qurban Hussain and Samar. The motive behind the occurrence was past resentment.
3. At the aforesaid report, a case under Sections 324, 341, 337-AF and 109,A.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Nar on 20.12.2012. After occurrence, Mohib Aghaz, principal accused -respondent absconded, who was proceeded under Sections 204,Cr.P.C., 87, Cr.P.C. And while submitting Challan against him under Sections 341 and 337-A(1), A.P.C. Before the trial Court, he was also proceeded under Section 512,Cr.P.C.
4. The trial Court, thereafter, commenced proceedings and recorded statements of nine witnesses.
Meanwhile, on 28.10.2013, Mohib Aghaz, accused- respondent applied for pre-arrest bail before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, which was rejected vide order dated 25.11.2013.
Thereafter, accused -respondent moved post arrest bail application before Additional Tehsil Criminal Court No.II, Kotli, on the same day, i.e. 25.11.2013, whereby bail was granted to him vide order dated 28.11.2013. The petitioner -complainant feeling aggrieved, filed an application before District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Kotli, on 24.12.2013, for cancellation of bail, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 07.02.2014; hence, the instant revision petition.
4(sic) Mallick Muhammad Zaraat Khan, the learned Counsel for petitioner-complainant contended that the accused- respondent after committing offence on 20.12.2012, absconded till 27.10.2013 , in this manner, he remained absconder for a longtime, which fact itself disentitled him of the concession of bail as it is well settled principle of law that a fugitive from law loses some normal rights including bail, but the Courts below failed to consider this aspect of the matter. The learned Counsel pointed out that as per merits of case the accused-respondent was not entitled to bail because he caused repeated Injuries on vital parts of the body of victim. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Court below did not apply its judicial mind and wrongly allowed bail just two days after his arrest, hence, craved for acceptance of revision petition. The learned Counsel in support of his contentions placed reliance upon the following authorities:--
1. PLD 1988 SC 726.
2. 2002 MLD (Lahore) 1268.
6. On the contrary , Mr. Rafiullah Sultani, the learned Counsel for accused- respondent submitted that value of abscondence depends on the facts of each case which may be consistent with the guilt or innocence of accused and is to be decided keeping in view the overall facts of the case.
The learned Counsel further submitted that the matter of cancellation of bail is to be viewed from altogether different angle from the question of allowing bail to an accused. The learned Counsel pointed out that once bail granted to an accused by a Court of competent jurisdiction in a case cannot be cancelled unless the discretion exercised by the Court is either perverse or arbitrary. The learned Counsel agitated that the Challan has already been submitted before the trial Court, accused -respondent is no more required for investigation, if the bail is cancelled and accused - respondent is sent behind bars, however, ultimately he is acquitted, there will be no price for the agony he will suffer; therefore, bail cannot be cancelled as a punishment. The learned Counsel finally prayed for dismissal of revision petition and cited following authorities in support of his arguments:-- 1.. 2004 PCr.LJ (SC AJ&K) 1843.
2. 2011 SCR 126.
3. 2011 SCR 80.
4. 2011 SCR 244.
5. 2012 PCr.LJ (Peshawar) 1560.
7. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Ayyaz, the learned Additional Advocate General representing the State fully supported the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner.
8. I have heard arguments of the learned Advocates for the parties and cursorily examined the record. A perusal of record reveals that after occurrence, accused-respondent remained absconded for more than ten months. This very conduct of the accused-respondent disentitles him to some of the normal rights including that of right of bail granted by the procedural and substantive law. Moreover, the absconsion has not been sufficiently explained by the accused- respondent before the trial Court. No doubt, the Challan has been presented but in the instant case, after initiating proceedings under sections 204, 87 and 512, Cr.P.C. The accused-respondent applied for bail. Therefore, his conduct disentitles him to the concession of even post arrest bail.
The aforesaid view finds support from a case reported as Mushtaq Hamed v. The State (2000 YLR 1695) wherein it has been opined as under:- "It is well-settled that fugitive from law and Courts loses some of the normal rights granted by the procedure as well as substantive law. The conduct of the accused-person is very much relevant and cannot be ignored under any law or principle. Anyone who by his conduct thwarts investigation or trial is not eligible to any discretionary relief. The above-stated conduct of the accused-petitioner shows that he had absconded and his unexplained noticeable abscondence for more than three years,prima-facie, was willful to avoid his arrest. I cannot accept this argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the absence of the petitioner does not come in the purview of abscondence, especially when he again and again 'avoided his arrest and did not surrender himself before the Court. Furthermore, he was declared an absconder after taking appropriate proceedings under Section 87 of Cr.P.C. Read with section 204 and 512, Cr. P. C.
9. I have no cavil with the contention of the learned Counsel for accused-respondent that the ,Challan has already been submitted before the trial Court, accused-respondent is no more required for investigation and if the bail is cancelled, accused-respondent is sent behind bars and ultimately he is acquitted, there will be no price for the agony he will suffer, but in the instant case the peculiar facts and circumstances especially when the accused-respondent remained absconder for a pretty longtime, suggest that the tendency of absconsion after committing an offence by criminals ought to be eliminated to keep the society nonviolent and peaceful.
10. So far as the authorities cited by the learned Counsel for the accused-respondent are concerned, these are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the case in hand; therefore, do not render any help to the accused-respondent.
11. The crux of above discussion is that by accepting the instant revision petition, I set-aside the impugned order dated 07.02.2014. The accused-respondent shall be taken into custody forthwith.
He shall be sent to judicial lockup. However, the trial Court is directed to decide the case expeditiously.