RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, C.J. The accused-respondent was arrested in a case registered against him under sections 302, 109, 448, 334, P.P.C. He filed an application for bail before the Additional District Criminal Court, Dudyal on 04.07.2022. The application was rejected by the trial Court, however, the learned Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court (High Court) allowed him the bail subject to furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,00,000/- consisting of two sureties and personal bonds in the like amount,
2. Raja Inamullah Khan, Advocate, submitted that after grant of bail the respondent has absconded abroad. He has misused the concession of bail, hence, it is a sufficient ground for cancellation of bail. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the case reported as Aziz Bibi and others v. Fazal Bi and others [2007 SCR 138].
3. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Raja, Advocate, the learned counsel, representing the accused-respondent stated that the respondent is 93 years of age. Due to death of her wife, he travelled abroad. He has not misused the concession of bail rather he proceeded abroad under the compelling circumstances. He further submitted that knee joint of the accused-respondent has been operated; hence, he is unable to travel.
4. The learned Advocate General stated that the accused-respondent is fugitive from law, hence, he is not entitled for any relief.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Bail was granted to the accused-respondent by the High Court vide order dated 10.10.2022. It is an admitted fact that after grant of bail the accused-respondent has proceeded abroad. In our opinion, if the circumstances were of such nature that travelling of the accused abroad was necessary then he should have moved to the Court for grant of permission but in the instant case the proper course has not been adopted. Prima facie, the accused-respondent is fugitive from law and he has misused the concession of hail, hence, he is not entitled to any relief. This Court in the similar circumstances recalled the bail granted to the accused in the case reported as Aziz Bi v. Fazal Hussain and others [2007 SCR 138]. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: ".. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The perusal of record shows that the respondent after obtaining concession of bail went abroad and did not appear before the Court. The learned counsel for the respondent on the last date of hearing even stated before this Court that he will produce respondent on the next date but he did not produce him. We have gone through the photostat copies of medical certificates issued by Dr. J. Delgado, Locum Consultant Haematologist, Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull, UK. According to these documents the respondent is suffering from Cancer but these documents contain different signatures of the said doctor which prima facie shows that these documents have been manufactured and the respondent after obtaining concession of bail has absconded. Thus he has misused the concession of bail. In the cases reported as Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan [PLD 1985 SC 402], Javed Alam v. The State [2004 PCr.LJ 964] and Muhammad Akram v. The State [1993 SCR 300] it has been held that no fugitive from law is entitled to concession of bail. Therefore the concession of bail allowed to him through order of Shariat Court dated 8.11.2004 is recalled on the ground that the respondent has misused the concession of bail and did not appear before the Court. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
In view of the above, while accepting this appeal, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.
Resultantly, the concession of bail granted to the accused-respondent is recalled.