Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Application No. 12 of 1976, heard on 3rd February 1976.

‑‑‑‑‑ S. 8(3), (b) read with S. 22(2)‑‑Detention order‑Revision---Detention order of petitioner passed on very day of his production before Tribunal and statements recorded in a summary manner without affording any opportunity to him either to engage a counsel or cross-examine witness examined against him--- Contention that High Court having no powers either to suspend impugned order or release petitioner bail, 'interference by High Court was unwarranted‑Contention, held, fallacious ‑‑High Court having been empowered to examine legality of any order passed by Appellate Authority, relief in form of granting bail car suspending detention order, held further, could be lawfully granted‑Petitioner granted bail, in circumstances of case.‑[Bail Revision (criminal)].

Muhammad Ali Sheikh for Applicant.

Usman Ghani Rashid, Asstt. A: G. for the State.

Date of hearing : 3rd February 1976.

The only objection raised by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General is that under section 22 (2) of the Surd Crimes Control Act, 1975 the High Court has not been given any powers to suspend the orders or release tire accused on bail pending the hearing of the revision application against the orders of the Commissioner. Section 22 of the Act shows that the Commissioner may in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction direct the execution of any order to be suspended and he may release the person on bail or on his own bond. The High Court has been given powers to examine the legality of any order passed by the Commissioner. Any order would include even the orders with regard to bail and if the bail is refused by the Commissioner then that question also could come up before the High Court in revision and the High Court under subsection (2) can pass any orders as it deems fit. The argument that though the Commissioner has the powers the High Court cannot exercise such powers in revision is accordingly fallacious. The powers of the High Court are not in any way limited and the High Court can consider any aspect of the order which the Commissioner could pass. The High Court can also pass any orders during ‑the pendency of these proceedings as such powers would be ancillary and necessary for effectively deciding the matter in issue. I am accordingly of the view that the High Court has powers to suspend the impugned orders and grant bail pending the proceedings in the nature of revision under section 22(2) of the Surd Crimes Control Act, 1975.

In the present case it has been pointed out by Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh that the order of detention under section 8 (3)(b) was passed on the very day the present applicant was produced before the Tribunal. That the statements for tire purpose of interim detention were recorded in a summa manner and no opportunity was given to the applicant to effective cross‑examine these witnesses or to engage a counsel. These rights of any citizen to have an opportunity to engage a counsel of his owe choice and to effectively defend himself cannot be taken away and they are the rights which have been guaranteed by the Constitution. Under these circumstances the order of the Tribunal under section 8 (3),(b) for interim detention needs a thorough examination and scrutiny and pending these proceeding, the applicant is certainly entitled to be released on bail. The application is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are suspender own applicant executing a P. R. Bond with one surety in the sum of Rs. 5000 to the satisfaction of S. D.M. & Tribunal, Hyderabad.

Revision allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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