Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2288 of 1965, decided on 17th August 1965.

------S. 497(5) road with S. 17(4) and High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chap. X, Para. 8‑Bail, cancellation of‑Jurisdiction‑Additional District and Sessions Judge entertaining application for cancellation of bail during temporary absence of Sessions Judge‑Additional Sessions Judge, held, could hear only urgent applications for bail and not applications for cancellation of bail Additional Sessions Judge, held further, wrongly assumed jurisdiction‑Bail confirmed.

Khan Bahadur Mushtaq Hossain for Petitioners.

Javaid Hashmi for the State.

This is a miscellaneous criminal application under section 439(t), Cr. P. C. against the order dated 10th of August 1965, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum, whereby he set aside the order dated 31st of July 1965, of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jhelum granting bail to each of the four petitioners in a case registered against them under section 307/34, P. P. C.

2. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is attacked both on the ground of want of jurisdiction and on merits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urges that during the absence of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge could hear only urgent applica tions for bail and he was not empowered to hear an application for the cancellation of the bail. In this behalf, learned counsel relies upon paragraph 8 of Chapter X of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III which provides that in the case of an un-avoid, able absence of Sessions Judge, he has to make arrangement under section 17(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the hearing of urgent bail applications. According to rule 15 ibid all bail applications are to be treated as urgent petitions there is, however, no provision in the Rules and Orders of the High Court requiring an application for tile cancellation of the bail to be treated as' an urgent petition. On the basis of these provisions, it is urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no power ether to, entertain or to hear the application for the cancellation of the bail granted by the learned Additional District Magistrate. There is force in this contention. I, therefore, hold that the learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly assumed the jurisdiction to entertain the application to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners by the learned Additional District Magistrate.

3. On the merits of the case, it appears that real dispute between the parties was over the possession of certain area of land which was jointly owned by Ghulam Muhammad petitioner, his brother Syed Ahmad and the sons of their third brother, Muzaffar Ahmad. It appears that at the instance of one Sabu proceedings are pending under section 145, Cr. P. C. in the Court of a Magistrate Ist Class, Jhelum with regard to the possession of this land. Sabu is recorded as a tenant in possession of the land. The learned Additional District Magistrate while granting the bail to the petitioners was considerably influenced by the fact that these proceedings were instituted seven days before the alleged occurrence. Such being the case, in my opinion, it is a fit case to admit the petitioners on bail. I accordingly restore the order of the learned Additional District Magistrate, whereby, he released each petitioner on bail in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety each in the like amount. A copy of this order be given dasti.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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