FAQIR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a criminal petition filed by the petitioner, Faqir Muhammad, who sought relief following the dismissal of his previous application by the Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, due to default in appearance on June 8, 2005. The core legal question addressed was whether the petitioner could be granted an opportunity to pursue his remedy before the trial court despite the prior dismissal for non-prosecution. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to file a fresh application before the Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan. The Court directed that any such new application must be decided strictly on its merits and in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the petitioner's previous absence. Furthermore, to protect the petitioner from immediate arrest while he seeks this remedy, the Court granted protective bail, directing that he shall not be arrested until June 30, 2005, at which point the protective order shall lapse. The principle established is that a dismissal for default should not preclude a party from seeking a fresh adjudication on the merits of their application.
- Can a petitioner file a fresh application after a previous application was dismissed in default by the Sessions Court?
- Is a Sessions Court required to decide a fresh application on merits despite a prior dismissal for non-prosecution?
- Can the High Court grant protective bail to a petitioner pending the filing of a fresh application before the trial court?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.--C.M. No,l of 2005. Allowed and disposed of.
Main Petition
2. Petitioner's similar application was dismissed in default by the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan on -8-6-2005. The petitioner may move fresh application to the learned Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan and if any such application is moved the learned Sessions Judge shall decide the same strictly on merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the absence of the petitioner on 8-6-2005.
3. Since the petitioner apprehends his arrest, it is directed that he shall not be arrested till 30-6- 2005 and this order shall, however, lapse at 2-00 p.m. On 30-6-2005.