Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure—Declaration of abscondence; procedural safeguards ----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (as applicable in AJ&K), Ss. 87 & 88 Abscondence must be declared strictly in accordance with statutory procedure—High Court set aside pre-arrest bail solely on observation that appellant had “absconded”—Held, no proclamation under S. 87 nor attachment under S. 88 was issued; without completion of this process, an accused cannot be termed an absconder—Mere absence or travel abroad, even during proceedings, does not constitute willful evasion—High Court’s unilateral declaration was illegal and contrary to law. Followed: M. Afzal v. Abid Hanif (2007 SCR 517); Kareem Dad v. Zaheer (2004 SCR 36). (b) Pre-arrest bail—Cancellation on erroneous premise of abscondence ----Grant and recall of pre-arrest bail—Discretion and equity Trial Court had validly granted interim pre-arrest bail (27-10-2022) after considering facts; High Court, in revision, recalled the order holding that absconders are disentitled to bail—Held, finding unsustainable since appellant was not legally declared absconder; recall of bail on such ground violates settled law and due-process safeguards—High Court’s judgment set aside. (c) Exemption from personal appearance—Effect of subsisting order ----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, S. 540-A (or corresponding provisions) Record showed appellant was granted exemption from personal appearance on medical grounds of his daughter; order remains unrevoked and is under challenge in pending revision—Departure from country pursuant to a subsisting exemption cannot be treated as abscondence; his conduct consistent with permission granted by competent court—High Court erred in ignoring this material fact. (d) Due process—Sanctity of procedural compliance ----Constitutional and statutory principles Adherence to prescribed legal procedure for declaring absconders is not a mere formality; bypassing it undermines fundamental fairness—Courts must guard against arbitrary deprivation of rights and ensure strict observance of procedural law before imposing disabilities like forfeiture of bail or declaration of abscondence. Cited Cases: • M. Afzal v. Abid Hanif & others, 2007 SCR 517 (abscondence requires statutory procedure). • Kareem Dad v. Zaheer & another, 2004 SCR 36 (mere short absence not willful absconsion). Disposition: Criminal appeal accepted; High Court judgment dated 15-03-2024 set aside; order of Sessions Judge/Anti-Corruption Court dated 27-10-2022 granting pre-arrest bail restored; appellant not legally an absconder—directions issued to proceed in accordance with law.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 87, 88, 514 & 265-C---Declaration of accused as proclaimed offender---Mandatory procedure---Non-compliance---Validity---Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender by the Trial Court without first issuing bailable warrants and without proper service of notice under S.87, Cr.P.C.---Held, that the learned Trial Court had not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Ss.87 and 88, Cr.P.C.---The purpose of successive processes (summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants, and proclamation) is to secure the attendance of the accused before the Court and not to punish for non-appearance---Issuing non-bailable warrants and declaring the accused a proclaimed offender without ensuring proper service amounted to denial of due process and violation of principles of natural justice---Impugned Order, therefore, suffered from material illegality and was liable to be set aside. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 435 & 439---Revision---Scope---Where procedural irregularity affects the legality of the order, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised to rectify miscarriage of justice---Trial Court’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements of Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C., being a jurisdictional error, warranted interference by the High Court in revision proceedings---Impugned Order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender set aside to the extent of the petitioner. (c) Criminal law---Fair trial and due process---Principles---Accused’s non-appearance not shown to be deliberate or contumacious---She had earlier appeared, received copies under S.265-C, Cr.P.C., and was on post-arrest bail based on compromise with complainant---Held, in the interest of justice, the petitioner deserved an opportunity to face trial rather than being penalized for procedural lapses of the Court---Direction issued for her appearance before the Trial Court and for continuation of proceedings from the stage where broken. Disposition: Criminal Revision Petition allowed; Impugned Order dated 23.04.2025 set aside to the extent of petitioner; petitioner directed to appear before Trial Court on 10.07.2025.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- S. 173 --- Recording of evidence through video link --- Permissibility under law --- Judicial discretion --- Procedural safeguards --- Scope Recording of a witness’s evidence through video conferencing is permissible in appropriate cases and has been recognized by superior courts in Pakistan, as well as in other jurisdictions. In the present case, the witness (Husnain) was grievously injured and undergoing medical treatment in the United States due to a paralytic condition and was physically unfit to appear in court. The trial and revisional courts declined to allow testimony via video link, citing his status as a proclaimed offender in two other criminal cases. The High Court held that while the justice system adopts a strict stance towards fugitives and proclaimed offenders, such status does not constitute an absolute bar in unrelated legal matters, including testifying as a prosecution witness. Video link testimony is a recognized tool to balance access to justice and procedural fairness, provided that courts ensure medical justification and prevent misuse. Impugned orders were set aside and directions issued for recording of video link testimony. Cited Cases: Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab (2013 SCMR 203) Khawaja Anwer Majid v. NAB (PLD 2020 SC 635) Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. The State (PLD 2018 Islamabad 148) Muhammad Israr v. The State (PLD 2021 Peshawar 105) State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful Desai (AIR 2003 SC 2053) Maryland v. Craig [497 U.S. 836 (1990)] United States v. Gigante [166 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 1999)] (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 --- Arts. 3 & 164 --- Competency of witness --- Status as proclaimed offender --- Legal disqualification --- Scope Article 3 of the QSO, 1984 provides an exhaustive test for competency of witnesses and does not exclude proclaimed offenders from testifying unless they are incapable of understanding or rationally answering questions due to age, illness, or other factors. Being a proclaimed offender in another case does not ipso facto disqualify a person from testifying in a separate proceeding. Courts may not introduce additional disqualifications not provided by statute. The High Court reaffirmed that the evaluation of competency is distinct from credibility, and procedural safeguards must be employed where necessary. Cited Cases: Tahir Sadiq v. Faisal Ali (2024 SCMR 775) Meera Shafi v. Ali Zafar (PLD 2023 SC 211) (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- Ss. 87 & 88 --- Fugitive from justice --- Proclaimed offender --- Distinction from absconder --- Effect on legal rights The judgment delineated the legal distinctions between a fugitive, absconder, and proclaimed offender. A proclaimed offender is declared as such after failure to comply with warrants and deliberate evasion, attracting serious consequences including attachment of property and limitation of rights. However, the High Court observed that procedural rights in other unrelated legal matters are not extinguished solely due to proclamation in a separate case. Judicial precedents caution against permitting proclaimed offenders to exploit legal remedies while evading arrest but recognize exceptions when distinct legal rights are at stake. Cited Cases: Chan Shah v. The Crown (PLD 1956 FC 43) Gul Hassan v. The State (PLD 1969 SC 89) Ehsan Ullah v. The State (2012 SCMR 1137) Muhammad Mushtaq v. AIG Police (2005 YLR 2427) (d) Constitution of Pakistan --- Arts. 4, 10A & 199 --- Right to fair trial --- Access to justice --- Technological facilitation --- Video testimony Use of modern technology, including video conferencing, is an aid to the constitutional right of fair trial and access to justice under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution. Courts must ensure that procedural fairness to the accused is not compromised, and that sufficient justification—such as credible medical evidence—is provided for remote testimony. The High Court emphasized judicial discretion in authorizing video link testimony and the importance of assessing each case on its own facts. Disposition: Petition allowed. Orders of the trial and revisional courts dated 28.03.2024 and 29.05.2024 were set aside. The trial court was directed to record Husnain’s testimony through video link in FIR No. 722/2022, subject to procedural safeguards.