Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 30 of 1981, decided on 28th February, 1981,

--- Ss. 526/539-Sessions Judge withdrawing- bail application from Court of Additional Sessions Judge to his own Court without notice to petitioner-Petitioner, held, prejudiced and order of withdrawal called for setting aside on such ground alone.

-- Ss. 526 & 539-Transfer of criminal cases---Transfer of bail application out of district agreed to by both parties due to serious allegations having been levelled against Additional Sessions Judge by one party and against Sessions Judge by other party---Both Courts, denying allegations---Transfer out of district allowed in interest of justice in circumstances of case.

R. A. Awan for Petitioner.

Sardar Altaf Hussain Khan for Respondent No. 1.

Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim for the State.

Wali Muhammad petitioner, one of the accused in case F. I. R. No. 166 dated 2nd August, 1981, under section 302/34, P. P. C., Police Station Shorkot, district Jhang, on 14th October, 1980 moved an application for bail in the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhang, which was entrusted for hearing to the Court of Malik Khizar Hayat, Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang.

2. During the pendency of the same, Khizar Hayat complainant moved an application to the learned Sessions Judge for the withdrawal of the application for bail of the petitioner from the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge. He made various allegations which were, of course, denied by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his comments stated that "in view of the above and in the best interest of justice, there can be no objection to the withdrawal of the application from the Court." Raja Muhammad Khurshid, the learned Sessions Judge transferred the matter of bail to his own file by his order dated 1st December, 1980 exercising his jurisdiction under section 528, Cr. P. C.

3. Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned the order of transfer passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhang. His learned counsel inter alia contends that the petitioner was a necessary party as it was his bail application which was to be decided but the impugned order had been passed without providing him an opportunity of being heard.

4. In his parawise comments the learned Sessions Judge hat admitted that the petitioner was not cited as party in the transfer application and only the State was impleaded as a respondent. The transfer of the bail matter or to put it in other words the withdrawal of bail application of the petitioner by the Sessions Judge to his own Court without notice to the petitioner is certainly a matter bf prejudice to the petitioner and the order would call for being set aside on this ground alone.

This brings me to the question whether the bail matter should be left With the Additional Sessions Judge for disposal or it should be transferred to some other Court. Serious allegations have been levelled by one party against the Additional Sessions Judge and by the other against the Sessions Judge which have been denied by both of them. I do not consider it necessary to examine the same for the purpose of determining the limited question hand as both the parties agree to the transfer of the bail application to a Court out of district.. I also consider it expedient in the interest of justice to transfer the bail application of the petitioner out of district. In the circumstances stated above, exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under section 435 read with section 526, Cr. P. C. I transfer the bail application to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who will dispose of the same at an early date.

Order 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.