SANAULLAH AND Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners, Sana Ullah and Nazir, in a criminal case involving allegations of abduction and zina. The petitioners had initially been granted pre-arrest and post-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, but the High Court subsequently cancelled these orders upon the complainant's application. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to challenge this cancellation. While the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's impugned order at this stage, it acknowledged new developments brought to its attention, specifically the statement of the alleged victim, Mst. Ghafooran, made before a Civil Judge in a separate suit for conjugal rights, and the persistent failure of the victim's father to produce her in court despite habeas corpus proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal but granted the petitioners liberty to file a fresh bail application before the High Court, grounded upon these newly emerged facts.
- Can a petitioner file a fresh bail application in the High Court based on new facts after a previous bail cancellation order?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court order cancelling bail when new, relevant facts have emerged?
- Is the failure of a complainant to produce an alleged victim in habeas corpus proceedings a relevant ground for a fresh bail application?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Sana Ullah and Nazir, petitioners were accused for the offence of abduction of Mst. Ghafooran while Sana Ullah petitioner was also accused of zina with her. Sana Ullah was granted pre-arrest bail while Nazir was allowed bail after arrest by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order dated 14-11-1981. On an application by Abdur Rahman complainant their bail was cancelled by the High Court vide the impugned order.
The accused petitioners now seek Leave to Appeal against the said order.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we do not consider it proper to interfere with the impugned order. It may, however, be mentioned that the petitioners' counsel brought certain the subsequent facts to, our notice, i.e. Statement of Mst. Ghafooran before a Civil Judge in a suit for conjugal rights filed by Sana Ullah against her and that the father of Mst.
Ghafooran is persistently refusing to produce he before the Court in a writ of habeas corpus notwithstanding the repeated orders for her production by the High Court. This petition is dismissed with the observation that the petitioners can file another bail application before the High Court on the fresh grounds mentioned above. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.