Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 231 to 242 of 1967, decided on 6th October 1967.
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 31st July 1967, in Cr. Misc. No. 3317 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3323 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3322 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3321 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3320 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3319 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3318 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3324 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3328 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3327 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3326 of 1967/Cr. Misc. No. 3325 of 1967).
S. 498‑Bail before arrest‑Lower Courts cancelling accused's bail bonds for non appearance‑Application for bail before arrest rejected by High Court‑Leave to appeal sought against High Court's order-- Application before High Court, held, was wholly misconceived- Remedy lay by revision from orders of cancellation of bail-- Petition dismisses‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).
M. Abdus Samad Hashmi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th October 1967.
‑In these 12 petitions the petitioner is the same. It appears that a number of criminal cases had been started against him in various districts ranging from Mianwali to Multan under sections 420, 468 and 170 of the Pakistan Penal Code. In all these cases he was enlarged on bail by the various Courts concerned. But subsequently as he could not be present in all the Courts on the dates fixed by the Courts, which in some cases happened to be the same day, is appears that his bails were subsequently cancelled for non appearance on the dates fixed. He, accordingly, moved the High Court by separate applications for bail before arrest in respect of each of the said cases and also applied to the High Court under section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer all the cases to one Court to one District so that he may be saved the harassment of running from district to district to defend himself. The High Court has on the 11th of July 1967, it appears, issued notice to the State on the application for transfer but has on the 31st of July 1967, dismissed the application for bail before arrest. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal from the orders refusing bail.
Having beard the learned counsel we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that these applications for bail before arrest were wholly misconceived. His remedy if any, lay by way of revision from the orders‑ of the Courts concerned cancelling his bails.
In any event, since notices have already been issued in the applications under section 526 we see no reason to interfere, for, if the cases are all transferred to one district the difficulties which now confront the petitioner will be obviated and he will be free to move that Court, to which the cases are transferred, for bail.
These petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer