Unexplained noticeable abscondence

Citation Name : 2019 MLD 1034 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Side Appellant : SADDAM
Side Opponent : State
abscondence ---Scope---abscondence of the accused could not rescue the prosecution when there was no other corroboratory evidence to connect the accused with the crime.

Citation Name : 2019 YLRN 115 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Side Appellant : RASHEED ALAM alias SHAMSHAD
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention,---Bail, refusal of---abscondence ---Repetition by accused of similar offence---Scope and effect---Petitioner contended that he was entitled for the concession of bail as his co-accused had already been admitted to bail---Validity---Admittedly, petitioner was directly charged in the FIR with a specific role of causing injuries to the deceased---After commission of offence, the petitioner went underground and was arrested after a period of six years---Record revealed that the petitioner had committed another offence and yet another FIR under Ss. 324 & 34, P.P.C. was registered against him---Grant of bail to the co-accused did not entitle the petitioner for concession of bail as "two wrongs do not make one right"---Prima facie case existed against the petitioner and he was not entitled to the concession of bail---Bail was refused to the petitioner, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2019 YLRN 107 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Side Appellant : ABDULLAH JAN
Side Opponent : State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 109 & 34---Attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Bail, refusal of---Unexplained noticeable abscondence ---Validity---First Information Report and statements recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C. revealed that the petitioners were directly charged in the FIR---Weapons of offence had been recovered from the petitioners---Victim who was critically injured in the occurrence had also charged the petitioners in his statement recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C.---Petitioners remained absconder for a long period---Absconder lost some of his substantive rights guaranteed to him under the law---Even otherwise, there existed a prima facie case against the petitioners---Bail was refused to the petitioners, in circumstances.