-Bail before arrest, dismissal of--Fugitive from law- -Non-submission of bail bonds as well as non-appearance of accused--Valid plausible reasons-

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 898

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 498--Bail before arrest, dismissal of--Fugitive from law--Valid plausible reasons--Non-submission of bail bonds as well as non-appearance of accused--By now it is well settled that if after getting ad-interim pre-arrest bail, accused does not appear before Court on date fixed, then it amounts to misuse of concession of pre-arrest bail and such accused does not deserve pre-arrest bail which is an extra ordinary relief in nature--Bail was dismissed.     [P. 899] A

2016 SCMR 2064 & 2020 SCMR 1270 distinguished.
2021 SCMR 518 & 2016 SCMR 2064 rel.

Rai Ashfaq Ahmad Kharal, Advocate for Petitioner.

Date of hearing: 4.5.2021.

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Lahore) 898
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
AKAASH MASIH--Petitioner
versus
STATE etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 29554-B of 2021, decided on 4.5.2021.

Order

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is 2nd petition for grant of pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner in the case, before this Court.

2. Perusal of record appended with this petition reflects that 1st petition filed by the petitioner for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case bearing Crl. Misc. No. 20323-B of 2021 was dismissed by this Court due to non-submission of bail bonds by the petitioner as well as non-appearance before this Court vide order dated 15.04.2021; relevant portion of said order is reproduced:

“As per office report the petitioner, in compliance of this Court’s order dated 25.03.2021, has not furnished his bail bonds, even today the petitioner is not in attendance, thus, instant petition is dismissed due to non-submission of bail bonds and non-appearance before the Court. Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is hereby recalled.”

No “valid/plausible” reason for non-submission of bail bonds as well as non-appearance of petitioner before this Court on 15.4.2021 could be referred and so-called reason offered in this regard could not find any buyer. Furthermore, after dismissal of afore-mentioned petition on 15.04.2021 petitioner remained fugitive from law till now. By now it is well settled that if after getting ad-interim pre-arrest bail, accused does not appear before the Court on the date fixed, then it amounts to misuse of concession of pre-arrest bail and such accused does not deserve pre-arrest bail which is an extra ordinary relief in nature, in this regard, guidance has been sought from the case of “Mukhtar Ahmad versus The State and others” (2016 SCMR 2064) and “Muhammad Jahangir Khan and others vs. The State and others” (2020 SCMR 1270), relevant portion from paragraph No. 3 of latter case law, is hereby reproduced:

“3. It has also been noted by us that at the time of hearing of the bail petition before the learned High Court, the petitioners absented themselves and even the counsel representing them was not present despite the fact that on the date prior to dismissal of bail petition, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners and petitioners were also present on that date i.e. 29.10.2019. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced herein below:

          “Case has been called repeatedly but neither the petitioners nor their counsel have turned up before the Court. Record further shows that yesterday i.e. 29.10.2019, Rana Abdul Ghaffar Advocate along with petitioners have appeared before the Court and matter was adjourned for tomorrow’ i.e. 30.10.2019. This is a pre-arrest bail and personal appearance of the petitioners is mandatory.”

In these circumstances; the petitioners are not entitled to the extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. The impugned order of learned High Court does not call for interference.”

Furthermore, in this regard case of “Abid Hussain versus Tassawar Hussain and another” (2021 SCMR 518) can also be safely relied; relevant partition of same is reproduced:

“Respondents previous conduct also escaped notice by the learned Judge, he had been avoiding process of law ever since registration of the case as is evident from the record, before the last dismissal on merits, he twice secured ad-interim bail, each dismissed on account of his failure to appear before the Court on the date fixed. It has been held by this Court in the case of Mukhtar Ahmad v. The State and others (2016 SCMR 2064)

that such conduct by itself disentitles an applicant to judicial protection.”

In view of above discussion, instant petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed in limine.

(R.A.)  Bail dismissed