O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Crl. Bail Application No.1132 of 2009
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGE
FOR HEARING
19-10-2009:
Mr. Qadir Hussain Khan, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Sohail Jabbar Malik, D.P.G.
- - - - - -
This bail application is filed under Section 497 Cr. P.C. against the impugned order passed by the learned VII Additional District & Session Judge, Karachi South, in Sessions Case No.299/2000 whereby the bail was denied to the accused vide order dated 17.09.2009. The facts stated by the counsel for the accused are that the accused was granted bail by this Court in Bail Application No.317/2001 on 30.04.2001, where after on account of absconsion, proceedings under Section 512 and Section 87 & 88 Cr. P.C. were initiated by the learned trial Court and the accused was again arrested. The accused again applied for the bail before the trial Court which was dismissed by the order referred hereinabove.
Learned counsel for the accused argued that as a matter of fact the trial Court framed charge against the accused for a offence under Section 324 PPC and other allied Sections in respect of injuries on the basis of complaint. The accused has remained in Jail for one year and three months on the first instance and is also presently in Jail. He further states that accused is chronic heart patient and requires further treatment. It was further argued that the absconsion of the accused was on account of misunderstanding as according to him the case which was registered on complaint of his wife, was almost settled as she has forgiven him. He further states that the accused never had any intention of misusing the concession of bail and throws himself at the mercy of this Court. It was further argued that the accused was never served with any notice for cancellation of his bail otherwise could have surrendered himself before the learned trial Court. He placed reliance on following reported cases:-
1. 1998 P Cr. L J 1450
2. 2003 P Cr. L J 1429
3. 2004 YLR 307 Lahore
Learned DPG conversely argued that under the circumstances merits of the bail are not as such relevant as the accused was already granted bail by this Hon'ble Court, the accused has to explain the reasons for misusing the concession of the bail as bail was denied by the trial Court on this point only.
I have perused the record, and the cases cited by the learned counsel for accused, which appears to be distinguishable except 1998 P Cr. L J 1450 in which it has been held that misuse of the concession of bail does not alter the merits of the case for grant of bail. Without touching the merits of the case, I am of view that the misuse of the concession of bail by the accused places him to face serious consequences, and despite merits of the case for grant of bail, the bail can be rejected simply on his act of misuse of concession of bail, therefore, reference to the merits of the case or the case law on the subject is not of any help to the accused. However, looking at the peculiar circumstances of the case, wherein the accused pleads that he never had any intention to misuse the concession of bail and was under impression that due to settlement with the complainant in this case (his wife) he was no more required in the case, also tenders apology and throws himself at the mercy of the Court. It is further argued that health of the accused is deteriorating day by day on account of chronic heart ailment to which effect he produced Medical Certificate. The accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs.150,000/- with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a caution that this may not be treated as a precedence. The trial Court is directed to conclude the case preferably within a period of three months. The applicant shall not take unnecessary adjournment and in case of his dis-appearance the trial Court shall forfeit his surety according to law.
J U D G E
Nadeeem