ABDUL RASHID and 3 otherss vs THE STATE
This matter arose from a protective bail application filed by the petitioners who were nominated accused in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners' previous bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, had been dismissed for non-prosecution due to their failure to appear. The core legal question was whether a bail petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution or if it must be decided on its merits. The Lahore High Court held that the lower court erred in dismissing the bail application for non-prosecution and should have disposed of it on the merits. Consequently, the High Court deemed the bail petition pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, directed the petitioners to appear before that court, and granted them protective bail in the interim to enable their appearance.
- Can a bail petition be dismissed for non-prosecution by an Additional Sessions Judge due to the non-appearance of the petitioners?
- Is a court obligated to decide a bail petition on its merits even if the petitioner fails to appear?
- Whether protective bail can be granted by the High Court to enable petitioners to appear before the lower court where their dismissed bail petition is deemed pending?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.---Submits that the petitioners namely Abdul Rashid, Ali Ahmad, Mehboob Alam and Muhammad Ayub, are the nominated accused in case bearing F.I.R. No,394 of 2005, dated 5-9-2005, under sections 302/ 324/148/149, P.P.C., registered at Police Station Yousafwala, District Sahiwal. It is contended that they moved bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal, on 26-9-2005, for non-prosecution as the petitioners did not appear. Further submits that the bail petition should have been disposed of on merits. Relies on Tahir Hussain and anther v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 2490 [Lahore]).
2. Perusal of the order dated 26-9-2005 reveals that the bail petition was dismissed for non- prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, he should have disposed of the petition on merits. Accordingly, their bail petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall be deemed to be pending and the petitioners shall appear before him on 8th October, 2005, who shall decide their bail petition on merits, however, the petitioners are granted protective bail till 8-10-2005 subject to their bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal.
Copy dasti.
Cited by 3 cases
- Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State etc. 2023 IHC 166
- Shazaib, etc vs The State, etc 2021 SCP 302, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 931, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 886
- Malik Tariq Hanif Awan vs The State & 2 others 2021 P Cr. LJ 250, 2020 LHC 1794