SAJJAD BASHIR vs THE STATE
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenged an order of the Lahore High Court that recalled the appellant's post-conviction bail without notice. The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment. While his criminal appeal against conviction was pending and admitted for regular hearing, bail had been granted to him due to prolonged detention. The complainant subsequently filed a criminal revision petition seeking enhancement of the sentence, which was ordered to be heard alongside the appeal. However, the revision petition was later taken up in isolation, and the High Court recalled the bail order without issuing notice or hearing the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in recalling the bail granted in the appeal while hearing the revision in isolation and without serving a show-cause notice on the appellant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's cancellation order, and restored the appellant's bail.
- Whether the High Court can recall a bail order granted in a criminal appeal while hearing a revision petition for enhancement of sentence in isolation of the appeal?
- Whether an order granting bail can be recalled or cancelled without issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---The order of conviction of the petitioner, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat dated 14-6-1989 under section 302, P.P.C., awarding him the sentence of imprisonment for life, was challenged in appeal in the Lahore High Cburt, Lahore which was admitted for regular hearing. The complainant also filed Criminal Revision Petition No,543/89 against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge for enhancement of the sentence imposed upon the accused/appellant. The learned High Court on the observation that appeal against the conviction having been admitted to regular hearing the revision petition was ordered to be heard alongwith the said appeal by order dated 16-6-1994. However, on 13-7-1994 the revision petition was again placed before MrJustice Abdul Majid Tiwana, the then learned Judge of the High Court, in isolation of the appeal. The learned Judge without hearing and without giving notice to the appellant cancelled the bail of the appellant who had been released on bail on the ground that he had remained for about four years in jail after his conviction and his appeal was undisposed of.
2. Leave was granted on 6-12-1994 to consider; whether the learned High Court was justified in recalling the bail order, without notice, on facts and circumstances of the case, while hearing the revision petition for enhancement of sentence.
3. We have heard Dr.Khalid Ranjha, Advocate appearing for the appellant and Ch. M. Akram, Advocate Supreme Court for the State and have gone through the orders. Admittedly the appellant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for offence under section 302, P.P.C. By the learned Sessions Judge, Gujrat, vide order dated 14-6-1989. Bail was granted in Criminal Appeal No,578 of 1989 filed by the appellant against his conviction and as his appeal was not before the learned High Court the said order could not have been recalled. Even if the learned High Court was of the view, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in revision petition the proper course open to it was to have summoned the appeal file and serve notice on the appellant to show cause why his bail was not to be recalled and then after hearing the learned counsel could pass a legal order. Such being the case apparently the order of the learned High Court is not sustainable under the law. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, judgment and order of the learned High Court dated 13-7-1994 is set aside and in consequence the appellant shall be released from jail and he shall be deemed to be on bail in compliance with the order of the learned High Court dated 13-11- 1993 in Criminal Appeal No,578/89.
' Copy of the order be immediately sent to jail authorities for compliance.
Cited by 2 cases
- ABDUL REHMAN vs STATE and another 2008 PLJ SC 1015
- ABDUL REHMAN vs THE STATE and another 2008 SCMR 1381