Raza Versus State
The captioned criminal revision petition was filed to challenge orders passed by the lower courts whereby the post-arrest bail applications of the petitioner in offences under sections 298-A and 489-Y A.P.C. were declined. The core legal question was whether bail can be refused in bailable offences where the accused claims it as a matter of right. The High Court held that in bailable offences, bail can be claimed as a matter of right and cannot be declined by the courts, setting aside the impugned orders and directing the release of the petitioner upon furnishing surety bonds. Additionally, the court initiated contempt proceedings against the judicial officers for ignoring binding precedents. The key principle laid down is that subordinate courts are strictly bound to follow the judgments of the superior courts and grant bail in bailable offences as a matter of right, and any deliberate deviation amounts to contempt of court.
- Can bail be declined in bailable offences?
- Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right in bailable offences?
- Does a deviation from superior court judgments by subordinate courts amount to contempt of court?
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 298-A, Azad Penal Code
- Section 489-Y, Azad Penal Code
1. Ch. Khalid Rasheed, J.---
2. Foreword :
3. The captioned revision petition has been filed to assail the order dated 15.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Pattikah Naseerabad and the order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Pattikah Naseerabad Muzaffarabad, whereby post arrest bail applications of the petitioner in the offences under sections 298-A and 489-Y A.P.C. have been declined.
4. STANCE OF THE PETITIONER:
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterated the contents and grounds already taken in the revision petition has vehemently argued that the alleged offences are bailable and it is a well settled precept of law that in bailable offences bail can be claimed as a matter of right and not as a grace of the Court but both the Courts below despite referring the judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the bail on conjectures and surmises by violating the cardinal principles governing the bail matters. He contended that on 25.07.2025 a report under section 173 Cr.P.C. has already been presented before the trial Court and the person of accused is no more required for further investigation thus denial of bail is tantamount to punish him before trial which is not warranted by law, hence, requested for acceptance of the revision petition.
6. REFUTATION OF THE RESPONDENTS:
7. While controverting the arguments, the learned AAG for the State frankly conceded that alleged offences are bailable and as per the judgments of this Court and Ho'ble Apex Court reported as 2022 SCR 714, the accused is entitled to get the concession of bail.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the contents of revision petition, the impugned orders recorded by both the Courts below and the supra mentioned order passed by this Court with due care and caution.
9. COURT OBSERVATION AND THE RELEVANT LAW:
10. It is a bedrock maxim of law that an accused can claim bail in bailable offences as a matter of right and a Court cannot decline the same, as has been held in 2022 SCR 714 and in an unreported judgment of this Court rendered in Cri. Revision Petition No.128/2025 titled Muhammad Shahbaz Ali v. State and another; decided on 27.06.2025. In the instant case the accused has been alleged the commission of the offences under sections 298-A and 489-Y A.P.C. Both the alleged offences are bailable, hence, the accused was entitled to be enlarged on bail as a right. However, both the Courts below failed to record orders in accordance with the principles governing the bail matters by wrongly rejected the bail application.
11. Before parting with the case it is pertinent to mark that the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments brought into the notice of this Court that an unreported judgment of this Court rendered in Cri. Revision Petition No.128/2025 titled Muhammad Shahbaz Ali v. State and another; dated 27.06.2025 was referred to the Courts below but both the Courts below did not honor the same rather violated the directions of this Court, whereas this Court has categorically issued direction to all the subordinate Courts of AJ&K in the following manners:-
12. "The plain perusal of the above dictum of the Apex Court left no option to all subordinate Courts except to grant bail whether post or pre-arrest in all bailable offences as a matter of right. It is not out of the context to mention that as per the command of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution all the subordinate Courts are bound to follow the verdicts of the Supreme Court and of the High Court, thus the impugned judgment is not only a clear departure from law but also in violation of the judgments of the Apex Court and command of the Constitution. The copy of this order shall be sent to the Registrar of this Court to circulate it to all the subordinate Courts for compliance."
13. The above mentioned judgment of this court has already been circulated to all the presiding officers of the Courts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Registrar of this Court. The learned counsel for petitioner has also sworn an affidavit on his behalf as well as an affidavit of his junior who argued the case before the Court below that the above mentioned judgment of this Court was referred to the Courts below during their arguments but were ignored in a contemptuous manner.
14. Both the learned counsel have not only sworn their affidavits but also got recorded their statements with a further stance that they were asked better to present this judgment before the High Court to get the bail orders.
15. Under Articles 42 (B) and 44(B) of the Interim Constitution 1974, all the Subordinate Courts are bound to follow the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court on any principle of law and any deviation from the judgments amounts to a clear contempt. The supra stated conduct of the Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate First Class Pattikah and Additional Sessions Judge Pattikah is an obvious contempt and violation of order of the Court, therefore, the office is directed to issue notice to both the Judicial Officers to appear before the Court with written explanation/reply to show cause as to why they may not be proceeded under Article 45 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 for contempt of Court due to their sheer violation of the blatant directions of this Court. To come up for further proceedings on 10.09.2025.
16. DISPOSAL:
17. The crux and epitome of the above discussion is, while accepted the captioned revision petition the impugned orders are hereby extinguished. The accused shall be released forthwith provided he furnishes bail bond consisting of two sureties in the sum of Rs.100,000/- as well as personal bond of the like amount to the satisfaction of any Judicial Magistrate Pattikah Naseerabad, if not required in any other offence/case.
18. JK/50/AJK(HC) Revision allowed.