ZAHID HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a transfer application filed by the petitioner, seeking the transfer of a direct complaint pending before the Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur, to another court. The petitioner alleged that the Presiding Officer of the trial court had remanded him to custody due to the petitioner's refusal to pay illegal gratification. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed to warrant the transfer of the case based on the petitioner's allegations of judicial bias and misconduct. The High Court examined the procedural history, noting that the petitioner had been remanded to jail and subsequently granted bail after arrest by the same court. The Court held that the petitioner's allegations of illegal gratification were unsubstantiated and falsified by the sequence of events, specifically the trial court's decision to grant bail shortly after the remand. Consequently, the Court dismissed the transfer application, finding no impropriety in the trial court's proceedings, and directed the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously while ordering the petitioner to cooperate with the trial process.
- Does an allegation of demanding illegal gratification against a presiding officer constitute sufficient grounds for the transfer of a criminal case?
- Can a transfer application be dismissed if the record demonstrates that the trial court acted within its legal authority regarding bail proceedings?
- Is a trial court required to proceed expeditiously when a transfer application is dismissed?
ORDER
1. ' The petitioner was nominated in direct Complaint No,1 of 2009 (Haji Allah Warrayo v. S.H.O.
2. Khamiso Khan and others) pending before Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur. The petitioner seeks transfer of the said direct complaint to another Court on the ground, inter alia, that the Presiding Officer took him into the custody and sent to Jail without his fault on account of his refusal to accede to his demand of illegal gratification.
3. ' Notices were issued to the learned counsel for the complainant as well as Advocate-General, Sindh learned A.A.-G. And the counsel for the complainant are in attendance who opposed the instant transfer application.
4. ' It appears that the direct complaint was made on 14-4-2009 and it was registered on 21-4-2009.
5. The bailable warrants were repeatedly issued against the petitioner followed by non-bailable warrants through DSP/DIG and PRO on 2-6-2009. He however, surrendered before this Court to seek protective bail which was granted on 3-7-2009. He, thereafter, surrendered before the learned trial Court to seek bail on 7-7-2009. The interim bail was granted by the learned trial Court and later on after the hearing the same was dismissed on 14-7-2009 and the petitioner was remanded back to jail. It also appears from the record that the petitioner was extended bail after arrest by the trial Court on 21-7-2008 and he is still on bail.
6. It is stated that charge has not yet been framed and the matter is pending. We do not see any impropriety in the order and the proceedings adopted by the learned Court below. As regards the allegation of demanding illegal gratification appears to be falsified in view of the facts that in a short span of time he was remanded back to jail on 14-7-2009 and he was extended bail after arrest on 21-7-2009.
7. ' Under the circumstances, the instant application is dismissed with the direction to the learned trial Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously and the applicant present in Court is also directed to attend the proceedings before the trial Court regularly and cooperate for conclusion of the trial in accordance with law.