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.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1554‑B of 1983, decided on 29th June, 1983
‑‑ Ss. 498 & 497 (5)‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10& 16‑Grant of bail by Sessions Court Additional Sessions Judge. while cancelling bail already granted after noting contention raised failing to apply his own independent mind to facts of case and without accepting or rejecting pleas of parties straightaway disposing of application for cancellation of bail‑Disapproved by High Court as being not a judicious adjudica tion‑Right of accused already granted bail and cancellation of such bail‑Procedure elaborated.
The Additional Sessions Judge in the present case while cancelling the bail already granted to the petitioner after noting the contentions being raised before him failed to apply his own independent mind to the facts of the case and without accepting or rejecting the pleas of the parties straightaway disposed of the application for cancellation of bail with the following observations :‑
"Taking into consideration the above facts and the circumstances of the case, I am‑of the opinion that the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled and the same is hereby cancelled."
2. The earlier part of the order was .entirely devoted in noting down the contentions of both the sides. Such a course adopted by the Additional Sessions Judge miserably falls short of a judicious adjudication while a person has been allowed bail through a reasoned order, a valuable right accrues in ‑favour of said person though he may be accused of a criminal offence. The Courts are always slow to cancel the bails already granted. However, if proper grounds are made out then the bail is liable to be cancelled by giving cogent reasons and after evaluating the pleas being raised before the Court from‑ both the sides. The order by its nature appears to be perfunctory and also lacks reasons, therefore, on no conceivable principle, such a slip shod order can be sustained the unsubstantiated subjective opinion of the Additional Sessions Judge was not sufficient in law to warrant the cancellation of bail.
‑‑ Ss. 497 (5), proviso & 498‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10 & 16‑Accused a female having a two years female child who also lodged with mother in jail‑Order of cancellation of bail, in circumstances, not valid order.
Mian Saeed‑ur.Rehman Farrukh for Appellant.
Muhammad Arshad Khan for the State.
Date of hearing : 29th June, 1983.
This bail application has been moved by Mst. Ghulam Fatima who is lodged in jail with a two years female child. After the bail was granted to her by the Sessions Court, it was cancelled by another learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 24th April, 1983. It is matter of concern and I regret to have to note that the learned Additional Sessions Judge in this case while cancelling the bail already granted the petitioner after noting the contentions being raised before him failed t apply his own independent mind to the facts of the case and without accepting or rejecting the pleas of the parties has straightaway disposed of the application for cancellation of bail' with the following observations :‑
"Taking into consideration the above facts and .the circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the bail granted to the respondent should be cancelled and the same is hereby cancelled."
2. The earlier part of the order is entirely devoted in noting down the contentions of both the sides. Such a course adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge miserably falls short of a judicious adjudication. I may observe here that while a person has been allowed bail through a reasoned order, a valuable, right accrues in favour of said person though he may be accused of a criminal offence. The Courts are always slow t cancel the bails already granted. However, if proper grounds are mad out then the bail is liable to be cancelled by giving cogent reasons and after evaluating the pleas being raised before the Court from both the sides. The order by its nature appears to be perfunctory and also lacks reasons, therefore, on no conceivable principle such a slip shod order can be sustained. There is substance, therefore, in the contention that the unsubstantiated subjective opinion of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not sufficient in law to warrant the cancellation of bail.
3. The petitioner is a female. She is entitled to the benefit of proviso to section 497, Cr. P. C. In addition to that, she has two years female child who is also lodged with her in jail. The order for cancellation of bail to say the least is not a valid order.
4. For the above noted reasons and the overall facts and circum stances of this case, I would admit the petitioner to bail in the sutra of Rs. 10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court, pending trial.
M.Z.M. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer