AGL40▲ 0 (0.00%)AIRLINK129.06▼ -0.47 (0.00%)BOP6.75▲ 0.07 (0.01%)CNERGY4.49▼ -0.14 (-0.03%)DCL8.55▼ -0.39 (-0.04%)DFML40.82▼ -0.87 (-0.02%)DGKC80.96▼ -2.81 (-0.03%)FCCL32.77▲ 0 (0.00%)FFBL74.43▼ -1.04 (-0.01%)FFL11.74▲ 0.27 (0.02%)HUBC109.58▼ -0.97 (-0.01%)HUMNL13.75▼ -0.81 (-0.06%)KEL5.31▼ -0.08 (-0.01%)KOSM7.72▼ -0.68 (-0.08%)MLCF38.6▼ -1.19 (-0.03%)NBP63.51▲ 3.22 (0.05%)OGDC194.69▼ -4.97 (-0.02%)PAEL25.71▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PIBTL7.39▼ -0.27 (-0.04%)PPL155.45▼ -2.47 (-0.02%)PRL25.79▼ -0.94 (-0.04%)PTC17.5▼ -0.96 (-0.05%)SEARL78.65▼ -3.79 (-0.05%)TELE7.86▼ -0.45 (-0.05%)TOMCL33.73▼ -0.78 (-0.02%)TPLP8.4▼ -0.66 (-0.07%)TREET16.27▼ -1.2 (-0.07%)TRG58.22▼ -3.1 (-0.05%)UNITY27.49▲ 0.06 (0.00%)WTL1.39▲ 0.01 (0.01%)

IHC toes SC directives to refuse bail in absentia

Share
Tweet
WhatsApp
Share on Linkedin
[tta_listen_btn]

Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir of the Islamabad High Court has revoked the pre-arrest bail order of an accused as he failed to justify what was the reason behind non-prosecution in the first pre-arrest bail application before Additional District & Session Judge Islamabad (West).

Police Station Golra Islamabad had registered a criminal case against an accused over alleged charges that he dishonestly issued a cheque of Rs585000 in term for accounts payable but the concerned bank dishonoured the instrument. Upon which the complainant got a First Information Report registered with the police station. Invoking the jurisdiction of Additional Session Judge, Islamabad (West), the accused filed first pre-arrest bail application in October 08, 2021 but failed to pursue the same due to which the subordinate court judge turned down the application for non-prosecution.

Again, the accused approached the Additional Session Judge, Islamabad (West) seeking pre-arrest bail in the matter, however, the judge rejected the application on merit in December 8,2021. Upon which the accused was granted pre-arrest bail. Taking up the matter, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir of the IHC said in the order, “The second pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner as well as the instant petition are accordingly dismissed, on account of his conduct of misusing the process of court and failure to furnish explanation of his absence before the court in his first bail petition. Consequently, ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 22.12.2021 is recalled”.

It is pertinent to mention that top court has held in a case, “if a pre-arrest bail petition is dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner under Section 498-A Cr.P.C, the second pre-arrest bail petition is maintainable only if the petitioner furnished satisfactory explanation for his absence in the first petition.

Related Posts

Get Alerts