Fugitive from law-The appellants submitted themselves to the sentence passed and obtained an interim order of bail in their favour albeit wrongly. In the facts of the case it will be less than charitable to attribute to the appellants that they were "fugitive from law". Saidur Rahman vs State 40 DLR (AD) 281.
Fugitive from law-A fugitive has no right to seek any kind of redress as against his grievance, if any, against the judgment and order of a Court convicting him to imprisonment. Monsur Ali vs State 55 DLR (AD) 131.
Fugitive from justice cannot seek justice without surrending before a Court of law.
It is a settled principle of law that a fugitive from justice cannot get the protection of law. The accused did not surrender to the trial court after his bail was cancelled and warrant of arrest issued. He moved the High Court Division without surrendering there, and, therefore, the revisional petition ought not to have been entertained nor the Rule issued. The swearing of the affidavit was illegal. The revisional petition filed before the High Court Division shows that the respondent did not appear before the Commissioner of Affidavits and the cause title of the petition does not state that the petitioner was in custody, or was on bail, or appeared in person before the High Court Division. The issuance of the Rule was illegal as was the grant of bail, which was cancelled by the Appellate Division and warrant of arrest was directed to be issued. The State--Vs.- Dr. Fazlur Rahman 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 136
Fugitive-A 'fugitive' is someone who is running away or hiding intending to avoid being arrested. But it does not appear from the record that process was issued by a competent Court of law for securing arrest and, as such, no question of evading execution of process arisen. Since petitioner's personal appearance was dispensed with by this Court she cannot be considered as a 'fugitive'. Zubaida Rahman vs State, 69 DLR 562
Fugitive- True she did not obtain bail from any Court or she was not in custody at the time of issuance of the Rule, but nevertheless she remained present before this Court when her application was placed and this Court dispensed with her appearance. From the charge sheet it appears that no process was pending against the petitioner at the time of issuing Rule. At the time of issuing Rule no process was issued from any Court of law, thus unerringly it can be said that at the time of issuing Rule the petitioner was not fugitive. Zubaida Rahman vs State, 69 DLR 562
Fugitive-In the absence of surrender before the process of the Court, the application filed under Section 561A of the Code is incompetent and not maintainable in the eye of law. Ali Haider Chowdhury vs State, 65 DLR 116
Fugitive from Justice
When a person wants to seek remedy from a Court of law, he is required to submit to the due process of the Court and unless he surrenders to the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court will not pass any order in his aid. The accused-petitioners did not obtain regular bail after expiry of the period of anticipatory bail and, as such, they become fugitive from the proceedings in the eye of law. Tajul Islam vs State, 65 DLR 336
When the Appellate Division categorically and consistently held that a fugitive is not entitled to seek any kind of redress as against his grievance, if any, then the pardon given to a fugitive is absolutely disregard to the said law and the Supreme Court. It is desirable that all con cerned. including the President and the Govern- ment should respect the law declared by the Supreme Court and the Government functionaries are obliged to act in aid of the Supreme Court in view of the provisions of Article 112 of the constitution. Sarwar Kamal vs State, 64 DLR 329
If a fugitive from law is given pardon knowing his status then the exercise of power under Article 49 of the Constitution or section 401(1) of the Code certainly be arbitrary, malafide, unreason- able, irrational and improper and such exercise of power is against the principle of the rule of law and an abuse of the power. Sarwar Kamal vs State, 64 DLR 329
This court has taken a consistent view that no writ petition is maintainable for quashing of a criminal preceding and secondly, a fugitive from justice cannot get any relief from court. The High Court Division has acted illegally in quashing the proceedings......Anti- Corruption Commission VS Tasmima Hossain, [3 LM (AD) 9]
Fugitive from justice- where the prosecution has investigated the matter and submitted charge-sheet which prima-facie discloses a cognizable offence against the pet- itioner, the petitioner is bound under the law to appear before the appropriate Court. His failure to do so has made him a fugitive from justice and, as such, writ petition cannot be entertained. Safiat Sobhan vs Anti-Corruption Commission 62 DLR 511.
The writ petitioners with- out surrendering before any Court of law filed the writ petition and obtained Rule and stay.
The principle of criminal jurisprudence is that a person concerned should submit to the process of justice before he can claim right of audience provided in law as well as the judicial convention, which is very much effective in the Court of law as the age-old maxim goes that a person who seeks justice from the Court of the law must come before the Court to agitate his grievance and must surrender first to the process of justice, otherwise, he remains to be fugitive from justice and cannot seek aid of assistance of the process of justice in order to claim right of audience against the process of the Court issued against him Nur Hos- sain Miah vs Bangladesh 62 DLR 514.
The petitioners were fugitive from justice when moved the writ petition and obtained the Rule and Stay. In view of the above, at the time of 'motion' hearing this Division wrongly entertained the writ petition and stayed the investigation against the writ peti- tioners. Nur Hossain Miah vs Bangladesh 62 DLR 514.
