MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs NASEEBUDDIN And 4 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of an application for bail cancellation by the Lahore High Court. The respondents, including Naseebuddin, were charged under sections 6, 10, and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and were granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner sought cancellation of bail on the grounds that Naseebuddin had absconded and that the bail order failed to discuss his case, addressing only the female co-accused. The core legal question is whether bail granted without considering the specific case of an accused who allegedly absconded is sustainable. The Supreme Court held that there is substance in the contention that the bail order omitted any reference to Naseebuddin and that he had not surrendered or appeared seeking pre-arrest bail. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against Naseebuddin while dismissing the petition against the remaining respondents, and issued a show-cause notice regarding the setting aside of the impugned order.
- Whether bail granted to an accused without discussing his specific case in the order is sustainable?
- Can an accused who has absconded and failed to surrender be granted bail?
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when the impugned bail order suffers from material non-appraisal regarding a specific respondent?
- Section 6, Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 10, Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 11, Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- Naseebuddin, respondent, along with three others namely Mst.
Jannat and Mst. Hajran, wife and daughter, respectively of Sultan, was charged under sections 6, 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 109, P.P.C. They were admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Sheikhupura vide order dated 20-10-1983. Muhammad Suleman petitioner sought cancellation of the said order in the Lahore High Court on the ground that Naseebuddin had absconded and was, therefore, not entitled to bail and offences he stood charged with are continuing offences but the learned High Court dismissed his application in limine per order dated 25-4-1984.
2. Learned counsel has brought to our notice that Naseebuddin had not surrendered to the police nor he appeared before the Court seeking pre-arrest bail; that the order of learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 20-10-1983, therefore, is exceptionable qua the said respondent; that in the aforesaid order 20-10-1983, the cases of the females only have been discussed but no reference has been made to Naseebuddin respondent and, therefore, the impugned order of High Court suffers from this infirmity as well.
3. We have gone through the record and find substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel as regards Naseebuddin accused /respondent. We, therefore, grant leave against Naseebuddin respondent only and dismiss the petition against the remaining respondents. Notice shall isue to Naseebuddin accused/ respondent show cause why the impugned order be not set aside.