BAKHTA And Others vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioners challenging an order of the High Court, which had cancelled the bail previously granted to them by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, and ordered them to be taken into custody. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a petition for leave to appeal against an order cancelling bail can be entertained or heard when the petitioners have failed to surrender themselves to custody in compliance with the High Court's order. The Supreme Court held that the petition could not be heard because the petitioners had failed to surrender themselves in pursuance of the High Court's order, despite being granted an adjournment on a previous occasion to facilitate their appearance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner seeking relief from the Supreme Court against an order of bail cancellation must first surrender to custody, and the Court will not entertain or adjourn such a petition if the petitioners remain at large and fail to appear before the Court.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal against a bail cancellation order be heard if the petitioners have not surrendered to custody?
- Is the Supreme Court required to grant adjournments when petitioners fail to appear to surrender in a bail matter?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The learned Judge of the High Court, by his order dated 21-5-1984, cancelled the bail allowed to the petitioners herein by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, and directed that they shall be taken into custody forthwith. The petitioners, without surrendering themselves, filed this petition for leave to appeal challenging the said order and seeking bail before arrest from this Court.
2. As the petitioners had not surrendered themselves in pursuance of the order of the High Court, the petition could be heard only if they surrendered themselves before this Court. When this case camp up for hearing on the first occasion, the petitioners were not present and their learned counsel sought adjournment on the ground that he could not inform the petitioners of the date of hearing, for which reason they could not be present before the Court. Accordingly, the case was adjourned for today. The petitioners are however not present before the Court even today and counsel again prays for adjournment.
3. We are not inclined to again adjourn the case. In the circumstances noted above, this petition cannot be heard. It is, therefore, dismissed hereby.
4. M . Z . M .Petition dismissed. 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.
Cited by 1 case
- ZAHID and another vs THE STATE and another 1991 PLD Supreme Court 379