SULEMAN KHAN AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal converted into an appeal, challenging an order of the Lahore High Court dated 28th November 1974 which cancelled the bail of the petitioners Suleman Khan and Shabbir Khan and directed that they be taken into custody. The core legal question concerned the legality of directing the custody of accused persons when no process of any kind had been issued against them by the Magistrate dealing with the case, and where they were not required for police custody in connection with the registered First Information Report. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that in the absence of any coercive process issued by the Magistrate or any requirement for police custody, the High Court's direction to take the petitioners into custody was unsustainable. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, leaving the Magistrate to deal with the complaint in accordance with law.
- Can the High Court direct the custody of accused persons when no coercive process has been issued by the trial Magistrate?
- Is bail liable to be cancelled and custody ordered where the accused are not required for police custody or trial proceedings?
- How should a Magistrate proceed with a complaint-case when an appellate court sets aside an improper bail cancellation order?
- Section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code
1. ' Abdul. KADIR SHAIKH, J.-A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court while cancelling bail granted to Suleman Khan and his brother Shabbir Khan, petitioners herein, directed by the order dated the 28th November 1974, that they shall be taken into custody by the concerned District authorities. It is submitted by learned counsel in support of this petition for special leave to appeal that the learned Single Judge in the High Court ignored the fact that no process of any kind has been issued against the petitioners by the Magistrate dealing with the case and no direction regarding their custody in jail could, therefore, be given by the High Court.
2. After tearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we converted the petition into appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the State conceded that no coercive process has yet been issued against the petitioners in the complaint-case by the 1st Class Magistrate, Gujranwala, and that they are also not required for police custody in connection with the First Information Report registered under section 302/34, P. P. C. At the Police Station, Kamoke.
3. ' In view of this admitted position, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The First Class Magistrate, Gujranwala will, however, deal with the complaint filed against the petitioners according to law. 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 2 cases
- Malik Tariq Hanif Awan vs The State & 2 others 2021 P Cr. LJ 250, 2020 LHC 1794
- ZARGAM KHAN and 6 others vs THE STATE 2007 YLR 1582