Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 426 of 1963, decided on 6th May 1964.

Ss, 498 do 500‑Bail‑ Women accused, residing in Karachi wanted, under non‑bailable warrant ‑of arrest, for trial by magistrate in Tribal area‑Sessions Judge granting bail but ordering ladies to be accompanied by escort (should such escort report) to trial Court‑Order relating accompani ment of accused by escort, held, does not amount to re‑arrest and escort under police custody.

While granting bail the Sessions Judge made the following observations: "The City and A. D. M. be informed and requested to let the ladies be accompanied by an escort to be present at Malakand if such escort reports to him." It was argued before the High Court that this portion of the order amounts to an order to re‑arrest the two females and send them to Malakand under police custody.

Held: No such meaning can be attached to the order. The order rather says that the ladies will be accompanied by escort. Perhaps the Sessions Judge thought some sort of protection to the ladies in their journey to Malakand and since he thought the escort might arrive the escort may as well accompany the ladies.

A. M. Qureishy for Applicants.

S. Murtaza Hussain for A. A: G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 6th May 1964.

There was a case under section 497/498, P. P. C. filed against Gulzar Begum and Mst. Zarina maternal aunt and her niece. A non‑bailable warrant was issued by Malakand D. M. after a bail able warrant had not been effective in getting the women before the D. M. The A. D. M. here rejected the bail application on 19‑6‑63 but .the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted the bail. The last lines of this order (which are the subject‑matter of this revision) read: ‑

"The City and A. D. M. be informed and requested to let the ladies be accompanied by an escort to be present at Malakand is such escort reports to him. 1‑7‑63."

It is argued by Mr. Qureishy that, this order under quotation amounts to an order to re‑arrest the two females and send then to Malakand under police custody of the escort that may come from Malakand. I do not see any such meaning in the order. The order rather says that the ladies will be accompanied by escort. Perhaps the learned Additional Sessions Judge thought some sort of protection to the two ladies in their journey to Malakand and since he thought the escort might arrive the escort may as well accompany the ladies. I find that the learned Additional Sessions judge took surety from the two females for their appearance here i.e. before him at Karachi. There is no direction in the order for the ladies to appear before the Court at Malakand. The learned Advocate for the State has drawn my attention to the date 1‑7‑63. The learned Advocate has suggested that "1‑7‑63" indicates that the females were required to appear at Malakand on that date. I do not find any reason for such an indication. The word "here" makes it clear appearance of the ladies at Malakand was not under the contemplation of the Judge when he passed this order. Mr. Qureishy says that the ladies in fact appeared before the Additional Sessions Judge on 1‑7‑63 and continued to appear before him as required by the Additional Sessions Judge from time to time. I think the order is not quite complete. The point should have been for appearance before the A. D. M. and before any other Court in Pakistan as directed by the Additional Sessions Judge and/or A. D. M. This will now be deemed to be the part of the order and a fresh surety be taken accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.