AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through this petition the petitioner has prayed for bail, inter-alia, on the ground that in the earlier Constitution Petition No,D-738 of 2003 filed by him, an application for release of petitioner on bail was made and the same was not pressed by him in view of the statement of the learned Deputy Prosecutor General, National Accountability Bureau (DPG NAB) to the effect that the trial of the' petitioner would be concluded within two months. In view of this statement of the Deputy Prosecutor General, NAB, this Court by its order dated 17-6-2003 had disposed of the said petition.
2. The petitioner has filed the present petition pleading therein that in spite of the statement of Deputy Prosecutor General, NAB, on the basis of which this Court has disposed of the petition with the direction to conclude the trial of the petitioner preferably within two months the trial Court has so far only examined 7 prosecution witnesses in 4 to 5 months out of 50 prosecution witnesses and the trial is likely to take years together to conclude the trial. The petitioner, therefore, has filed the present petition praying that the petitioner be released on bail during the pendency of his trial.
3. The facts as it appears from the Memo of petition are that the petitioner was granted bail by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Hyderabad, in F.I.R No,11 of 2000. The case was transferred to Accountability Court at Hyderabad. The petitioner continued appearing before the Accountability Court at Hyderabad till 10-7-2002 whereafter he failed to appear. It appears from the record that the surety of the petitioner was forfeited and the petitioner was declared absconder and proceedings under section 88 Cr.P.0 were also held by the Accountability Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender and was convicted on 18-12-2002 under section 31-A of the NAB Ordinance and sentenced for three years imprisonment.
4. It appears that the petitioner filed a Criminal NAB Appeal No,39 of 2002 in this Court challenging his conviction under section 31(A) of the NAB Ordinance, and by order 10-4-2003 petitioner was granted bail in appeal against conviction. The order convicting the petitioner was also suspended by this Court directing the petitioner to surrender before the NAB Court Hyderabad. The petitioner on 22-5-2003 surrendered before the Accountability Court at Hyderabad and by order dated 29-5- 2003 the petitioner was remanded to the judicial custody by the said Court.
5. The petitioner then filed Constitution Petition No,D-738 of 2003 for grant of bail which bail application was not pressed by the petitioner in view of the statement of learned Deputy Prosecutor-General, NAB that the trial Court would conclude the trial within two months. The petition, therefore, for the aforesaid reasons was disposed of in the above terms vide order dated 17-6-2003.
6. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the lapse of more than five months the trial Court could only examined 7 prosecution witnesses out of 50 such witnesses and except the petitioner all the other accused persons are on bail. According to, the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no likelihood that the trial would conclude before another 2 to 3 years as there are more than 45 prosecution witnesses which are yet to be examined by the prosecution. He further submitted that the Presiding Officer of Accountability Court holds the Court once after every fifteen days which would further delay the trial of the petitioner, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner there is no regular Accountability Court at Hyderabad and learned Accountability Court No,2 Karachi holds the charge of Accountability Court at Hyderabad.
7. In the first instance it was argued that failure to get the trial concluded within the period of two months undertaken in CP No,D-738 of 2003 itself entitled the petitioner to bail. We regret we are unable to agree. It is well settled that such directions could only be treated as directory. In any event the order itself states that upon expiry of the said period the petitioner may be able to apply for bail (Underlining ours). It does not state that the petitioner shall acquire a right to be enlarged on bail.
8. We, therefore,' decided to hear the bail application of the petitioner on merits. The reason for absconsion of the petitioner from the Accountability Court is unexplained. The petitioner after attending the Accountability Court at Hyderabad for some dates made himself scares by abusing the concession of bail.
9. The argument of the learned counsel that though the petitioner had abused the concession of bail but notwithstanding this the petitioner can still be enlarged on bail. He relied upon the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in State v. Mukhtar Awan (1991 SCM R 322) where their Lordships observed, "it is not an absolute rule that a fugitive should under no circumstances be enlarged on bail thought it may constitute a relevant factor when examining the question of bail."
10. We are not persuaded by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. An unexplained noticeable absconsion of the petitioner disentitles him to the concession of bail notwithstanding the merits of the case. The petitioner once has abused the concession and has failed to submit any plausible explanation for such absconsion, is not entitled to the grant of the bail as has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sher Ali v. The State reported in 1998 SCM R 190.
11. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case in which all the other accused persons except the petitioner are on bail, we direct the Accountability Court to hold Court at least once a week at Hyderabad and conclude the trial within three months from today by giving priority to the case of the petitioner. The Deputy Prosecutor General NAB is directed to ensure that Investigating Officer shall take all reasonable steps to procure the attendance of the prosecution witnesses and would not be allowed to seek adjournments for such purpose. The prosecution witnesses should be examined within 3 to 4 hearings by examining at least 10 witnesses on each date of hearing.
12. It would, however, be open to the petitioner to move this Court if the Accountability Court fails to conclude the trial within the aforesaid three months from today. Copy of this order be communicated to concerned Accountability Court through Deputy Prosecutor General NAB for compliance.
13. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.