Abscondance – My Blog

Abscondance per se is may not be a sole ground for refusal of bail but it is indeed one of the factors which could be taken into consideration by a Court of law. Muhammad Amin Hussain v. The State 1996 SCR 313 (B)
An offender who after committing the offence remains absconded is normally deprived of all the legal facilities including his release on bail. Javed Alam v. The State 2002 SCR 284 (A)
To declare an accused as a fugitive from law and absconder, a process provided by Code of Criminal Procedure has to be followed and it is only after completion of that process that an accused is declared as absconder — Mere absence from Court on one or more dates fixed for hearing is not itself sufficient to constitute absconsion or declare an accused as fugitive from law.Muhammad Afzal v. Abid Hanif & another 2007 SCR 517 (A)
Once a person is declared as fugitive from law, he loses some of the rights including grant of bail provided the facts so demand. Muhammad Afzal v. Abid Hanif & another 2007 SCR 517 (B)
Contention raised by petitioner that he could not attend the Court due to ailment has not been refuted — Order passed by trial Court has been cancelled on the ground that once an accused has been declared absconder or fugitive from law bail granted to him has to be cancelled — Held: This ground is neither recognized by any codal provision nor has been approved by the superior Courts as an absolute rule. Muhammad Afzal v. Abid Hanif & another 2007 SCR 517 (C)
Bail matte — contention of the complainant that the accused remained abscondance — Held: Although, the absconsion of the accused itself is a strong piece of evidence which can be taken into account while deciding the bail matter but mere abscondance cannot be construed sufficient for convicting an accused. Further held: The abscondance of an accused is not conclusive by itself to establish his guilt and its probative value depends on the facts and circumstances of each particular case, yet the same is universally admitted as evidence of guilt of the accused. Raja Muahmmad Farid Khan v. Raja Sheraz & 2 others 2015 SCR 465 (B) 2007 SCR 517 rel.
No sole ground for conviction — Contention — that due to abscondance of the convict-appellant, the conviction order is justified. Held: it is not appropriate appreciation of law. No one can be convicted merely on the ground of the alleged abscondence. No doubt, if abscondence is proved according to law, it may disentitle the accused from the rights which rests with the discretion of the Court or if the case is proved according to the required standard, the Court may consider the abscondence for determination of quantum of punishment but mere abscondence cannot be a ground for conviction of the accused unless the case is proved according to the principle of administration of criminal justice. Tasawar Hussain versus The State & 9 others 2016 SCR 373 (C) 2007 YLR 1440 rel.
Bail — grant of — The ground of mere abscondence cannot be made a ground to withheld the bail for an indefinite period. Zia Wakeel versus Nadeem Akram & another 2016 SCR 538 (A) 1996 SCR 313, rel.
— mere abscondance does not disentitle the accused from the concession of bail, if he is otherwise entitled for the same. Farzana Begum & others v. Sohail Umer & another 2017 SCR 420 (B)
—mere abscondance—cannot be made basis for conviction—murder case—conviction abscondence alone is not the substitute of the real evidence as sometime the people do abscond though falsely charged in order to save themselves from agony of prolonged trial. The prosecution has to prove the case against the accused by producing unimpeachable evidence and mere on the basis of abscondence conviction cannot be recorded as it is just a corroborative piece of evidence. Ammad Asghar v. Tahir Sarwar & 2 others 2019 SCR 886 (C) Abdul Khaliq v. The state, 2006 SCMR 1886 rel.
—Merely on the basis of abscondence, the conviction cannot be recorded. Muhammad Muzamal The State & others 2022 SCR 26 (C)