IMRAN ALI vs THE STATE
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances, Hyderabad, which cancelled the bail of the accused and issued non-bailable warrants against him due to his absence on a specific date of hearing. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court's order cancelling bail was justified given the circumstances of the accused's absence. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court observed that the accused had submitted a medical certificate indicating that his three-year-old son was seriously ill and required hospitalization during the relevant period, necessitating the accused's presence to attend to him. The Court held that the absence of the accused was neither wilful nor deliberate but resulted from unavoidable circumstances beyond his control. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order of bail cancellation and directed that the accused be allowed to remain on his previous bail and surety. The judgment affirms the principle that bail should not be cancelled for non-appearance when such absence is satisfactorily explained by unavoidable personal exigencies.
- Can a trial court cancel bail solely due to the absence of the accused on a date of hearing?
- Does a medical emergency involving a family member constitute sufficient ground to excuse the absence of an accused from trial proceedings?
- Is the cancellation of bail justified when the absence of the accused is proven to be neither wilful nor deliberate?
- Section 9-B, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
ORDER
1. ' By this Cr. Revision Application, the applicant/accused has assailed the order of Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substances Hyderabad dated 26-8-2003 whereby his bail was cancelled, and N.B.W was ordered against, him as well as notice to his surety.
2. ' We have heard Mr. Aijaz Shaikh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant/accused and Mr. Masood A. Noorani, learned Additional A.-G. The latter does not support the impugned order.
3. The perusal of material placed on record shows that the applicant/accused is facing trial before Special Judge C.N.S Hyderabad in a Case under Section 9-B (CNS) Act, 1997 which arose out of F.I.R No,33 of 2002 of Police Station Tando Yousuf. On the relevant date of hearing i.e, 26-8-2003 when the case was called, applicant/accused was absent therefore his bail bond was forfeited and N.B.W. Was ordered against him as well as notice to his surety. The medical certificate annexed with application reveals that on the date of hearing i.e, 26-8-2003 the son of applicant namely Ali Asghar aged about 3 years was ill and due to his serious condition he was treated in hospital upto 28-8-2003 and applicant was attending him. It appears that the absence of applicant/accused was neither wilful nor deliberate but it was due to unavoidable circumstances which were beyond his control.
4. ' Resultantly, the impugned order is set aside. The applicant/accused is allowed to remain on same bail and same surety.
5. ' The Cr. Revision Application stands iands disposed of along with listed application.