The facts leading to the present application for bail are that applicant/accused Shakeel Ahmed is facing trial in Sessions Case No,396 of 1996 before learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi
(West) in a case under sections 324 and 34, P.P.C., which has arisen out of FIR. No,82 of 1995 of Police Station Baldia Town, Karachi.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, as stated in the F.I.R. Lodged by complainant Muhammad Sarwar are that on fateful day the complainant was working in his hotel known as Gharib Nawaz Hotel, situated at the Bus Stop No,2, Rasheedabad, Baldia Town, Karachi. At about 9-00 p.m. Three young persons whose addresses and names were not known to complainant but he can identify them, came duly armed, and started firing with the result that Noor Muhammad, father of the complainant received fire-arm injuries on his left thigh, left hand and arm. After causing fire-arm injuries assailants ran away from the scene of offence.
3. The applicant/accused was arrested and he applied for bail and the same was granted to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) on 6-2-1996.
4. The applicant/accused remained absent before the trail Court. Non-bailable warrant of arrest was, therefore, issued against him on 23-12-1998, applicant/accused surrendered before the trial Court and he was remanded to judicial custody.
5. The applicant/accused applied for bail before the trial Court but his prayer was declined by impugned order, dated 12-1-1999.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused and Mr. .Sharafat Ali Khan, learned counsel on behalf of A.-G. For the State. Latter opposed the grant of bail.
7. The material placed on record shows that applicant/accused was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) on 23-1-1996 vide order passed in Criminal Bail Application No,17 of 1996. Impugned order reveals that in the charge-sheet submitted by the police before the Court applicant/accused was shown on bail granted by the Sessions Court and from 1-7-1996 to 16-9- 1996 the case remained on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Karachi (West) but applicant/accused failed to appear on the date of hearing. Non-bailable warrants were, therefore, issued against him. The case was received by the learned IlIrd Additional Sessions Judge, by way of transfer on 9-10-1996.
8. The contention of the learned counsel that the applicant/accused was regularly attending the Court and he was informed by the Court staff that the case against him stood disposed off and that he need not appear before the trial Court is misconceived as it is not borne out from the record nor any material has been placed on record by the applicant/accused from which it could be deduced that he was asked about the final conclusion of his case. Solitary word of the applicant/accused cannot be termed as proof of his contention.
9. Apparently the applicant/accused was fugitive from law as it is spelt out from the record that after grant of bail on 23-1-1996 he did not appear in Court till 23-12-1998 and he was an absconder.
The unexplained abscondence for a long period disentitles an accused to the concession of bail because by such conduct he thwarts the course of justice. The fugitive from law loses some of the normal rights available by procedural as well as substantive law. The abscondence disentitles an accused to concession of bail even if case does not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this context, I am fortified by the dictum of Honourable Supreme. Court in the case of Sher Ali alias Sheri v. The State 1998 SCM R 190, Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 402, Akhtar Ali v. Azhar Ali 1985 SCM R 1166 and Rao Qadeer Khan v. The State PLD 1981 SC 93.
The upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant/accused has misused the concession of bail by way of abscondence. He is, therefore, not entitled to bail. Consequently, this bail application is dismissed.