He who flees judgment confesses his guilt.
Explanation & Origin
Origin- Fatetur facinus qui judicium fugit is a Latin term which means a person who run aways before the judgments is given is guilty. Also it can mean fleeing from justice.
Explanation- The meaning behind this term is that a man who hasn’t done any crime does need to run away because he knows that he is not guilty. But a person who flees before a judgment is given then he has something to hide and he knows that he is guilty of crime and doesn’t want to face the punishment.
AB runs away before the court goes into trial. Why does have to flee when the trial is about start because he knows he is guilty of a crime
In the case of, Anil Mahajan vs Commissioner Of Customs & Anr This application for bail is opposed also on the ground that along with the official witnesses there are independent witnesses and there is every possibility of the accused person tampering with evidence and fleeing from justice if he is released on bail.
Learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner mainly on two grounds : (i) that the petitioner is accused of a grave economic offence and (ii) that the petitioner may flee from justice and tamper with evidence if he is released on bail. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that bail should not be refused on the ground that the offence is an economic offence. According to the learned counsel, either the description of the offence as an economic offence or the maximum sentence that can be awarded cannot be a ground for refusing bail to the petitioner since the investigation has already been completed, the goods have been seized, the records have been taken into custody, the evidence has been documented and the complaint has been filed in the Court. It is submitted that the petitioner is no more required for any further investigation or enquiry and that there is no likelihood of the petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with evidence. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an established businessman with roots in the society and that there is no basis for a reasonable apprehension that the petitioner will flee from justice if he is released on bail. It is contended that since the evidence in the case has been documented and since the main witnesses are official witnesses there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with evidence if he is released on bail.
In the case of Rajendra Singh Sethia vs State In any case, Mr. Jethamalani maintains that the article apprehension of fleeing from justice is necessarily to be evaluated in the light of the new considerations, fresh developments and circumstances. Court gave a careful consideration to the arguments advanced and the contention raised. It would be seen that while dealing with the bail applications earlier, the court has been influenced by certain considerations which are no more in existence. In the ultimate analysis the bail was refused on two considerations, namely, the gravity of the offence and the apprehension of the State that the petitioner is likely to flee from justice.
In the case of P.V. Narasimha Rao vs State The main contention of the counsel for both Mr.P.V.Narasimha Rao and Mr.K.K.Tiwari, is that as the trial is based mostly upon documents and the investigation being over, there cannot be any apprehension of the petitioners tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice. It is now well settled that the over riding considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with grim prospects of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses, the history of the case as well as of its investigation. But the two paramount considerations which the Court has to take into consideration at the time of grant of bail are the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence which relate to ensuring a fair trial of the case in the course of justice. Due and proper weight should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. There cannot be a set formula in the matter of granting bail and the facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling the bail.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 2000 IIIAD Delhi 369
 1988 CriLJ 749
 64 (1996) DLT 665