Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
PLD 1987 Lahore 144
Before Muhammad Sharif ,J
MUHAMMAD ASHIQ-Petitioner
versus
THE STATE-Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 107 of 1986/BWP, decided on 17th November, 1986.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-
-- Ss. 497 & 498-Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss. 10(2) & 11-Bail-Bail before arrest Pre-arrest bail granted to accused-petitioner by Additional Sessions Judge confirmed-Petitioner absenting himself on date of hearing and non-bailable warrants of his arrest having been issued surrendering himself and moving an application for recall of warrants of arrest-Trial Court neither cancelling petitioner's bail nor issuing any notice to surety to produce him and without deciding his application sending petitioner to jail-Procedure adopted by trial Court, held, was absolutely erroneous-Interim bail granted earlier to petitioner by High Court confirmed till disposal of case against him.
Muhammad Sharif Bhatti for Petitioner.
Muhammad Akbar for the State.
The petitioner was involved in a case under sections 10(2) and 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance No. VII of 1979, and under section 452/148/149, P. P. C. by means of a private complaint. He was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur. The pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was confirmed on 25-3-1986. The petitioner was absent on 22-10-1986 and non-bailable warrants of his arrest were issued. The petitioner surrendered himself on 26-10-1986 and moved an application for the re-call of the warrants of his arrest. His application was kept pending by the learned trial Court and the petitioner was sent to jail. He has been released on interim bail by this Court. He has filed a Criminal Revision against the order dated 26-10-1986, pronounced by Mr. Muhammad Akmal Qureshi, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.
2. It has been contended that before the cancellation of the bail, the non-bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner could not be issued, nor could he be sent to jail. It has also been represented by the petitioner that he could not appear before the said Court on 22-10-1986 on account of the demise of his real nephew.
3. Admittedly, the bail of the petitioner was not cancelled nor any notice to the surety was issued to produce the petitioner. The petition moved by the petitioner was not decided and he was sent to jail when his application was sub judice. The procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is absolutely erroneous. I, therefore, accept this revision petition. The bail already allowed to the petitioner by this Court is confirmed till the disposal of the case against him.
s. Q./620/L Bail confirmed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer