Absconsion

  1. Bail after arrest or pre-arrest can be refused to an accused person who was guilty of absconsion — In the present case the period of absconsion has not been explained — Held: The Shariat Court was justified in law in recalling the bail allowed to the appellants by the District Court of criminal jurisdiction. Muhammad Yunus and another v. State and another 2003 SCR 478 (B)
  2. In the circumstances of the case mere absence of 25 days cannot be viewed as a wilful absence at this stage — Even from police record it does not appear that the accused intentionally and with mala fide purpose absconded from the scene of occurrence — It is yet to be resolved whether accused-respondent was aware of his involvement in the case — It does not transpire from the record that proceedings u/s 87 Cr.P.C. were ever initiated against him — The accused-respondent prima facie does not fall within the category of fugitive offender from law to be deprived of the concession of pre-arrest bail. Kareem Dad  v. Zaheer and another 2004 SCR 36 (E)
  3. Mere absconsion is not the conclusive proof of guilt of accused persons — It is only a suspicious circumstances against an accused — Suspicions after all are suspicions — Same cannot take place of proofs — Some persons who are accused of murder even if they are innocent they feel themselves insecure and go away or conceal themselves upto certain limit so that their innocence is established with the police — The value of absconsion depends on the facts of each case — The absconsion of the accused may be consistent with the guilt or innocence of the accused, which is to be decided keeping in view the overall facts of the case. Muhammad Jahangir v. Kala Khan and another 2004 SCR 359 (A)
  4. Whether bail can be refused only on the ground of absconsion or it has to be decided while keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case — Held: It is an established principle of law that bail matters always have to be decided on merits and technicalities should not defeat the justice to be administered — Held further: It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the approach of the Court should always be dynamic and technicalities should not be given weight and cases should always be decided on merits keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case — While deciding a bail application the Court has to look into F.I.R., statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. and other relevant material. Fazal-e-Rabi v. State & another 2008 SCR 495 (B)
  5. Bail cannot be refused only on the ground of absconsion — No doubt absconder loses some rights of bail but overall circumstances have to be kept in sight while deciding bail matter. Fazal-e-Rabi v. State & another 2008 SCR 495 (C)
  6.  —Absence of accused for prolonged period amount abcondence—Convict after getting concession of bail without permission of the Court went abroad—remained absconder more than 25 years—Held: the convict instead of facing trial left the country without adopting the proper course and remained out of country for a long period, consisting of 25 years—The High Court rightly considered such absence as abscondence. Muhammad Younas  v. The State & others 2019 SCR 149 (F)
error: Content is protected !!