Pakistan Case Law
1997 SCMR 1351

HABIB SHAH vs The STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1997 SCMR 1351
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petitions Nos.49 to 52-K of 1994 Criminal Bail Applications
Date1994-07-03
Judge(s)Sajjad Ali Shah, C. J. and Muhammad Munir Khan
Authored bySajjad Ali Shah
ResultCases remanded
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of bail applications by the High Court through a short order. The core legal question concerns the validity of a short order of bail dismissal where the detailed reasons were never recorded due to the trial judge ceasing to hold office before confirmation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the impugned short order must be set aside when reasons are not recorded owing to the cessation of office of the judge. The Court converted the petitions into appeals, allowed them, and remanded the cases back to the High Court for a fresh hearing of the bail applications and the issuance of reasoned detailed orders. The key principle laid down is that where a judicial officer fails to record reasons subsequent to a short order due to cessation of office, the matter warrants a remand for a de novo hearing.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • What is the legal effect of a short order dismissing bail when the detailed reasons are never recorded due to the judge ceasing to hold office?
  • Can delay in filing petitions be condoned when the petitioner was awaiting unrecorded detailed reasons of a short order?
  • When a High Court judge ceases to be in service before authoring reasons for a short order, how should the appellate court dispose of the matter?
bail applicationshort orderunrecorded reasonsremand of casecriminal appeal

ORDER

1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---On account of common facts and points of law, these petitions are to be dealt with by a common order and to be disposed of with a common order.

2. 2, These petitions arc barred by 67 days. It is explained by the learned counsel that short order was announced and reasons were to be recorded later which were never recorded and he kept on inquiring about the detailed order. In the circumstances delay is codoned.

3. 3 It is submitted that after hearing of the bail application in the High Court short order was announced on 22-3-1994, dismissing the bail applications for the reasons to be recorded later, which were never recorded for the reason that learned Judge of the High Court was not confirmed in service on following date and consequently he ceased to be a Judge.

4. In the circumstances the impugned short order is set aside and these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed and the cases are remanded to the High Court for hearing of bail applications again and writing of detailed orders with reasons. Mr. A.G. Mangi has no objection.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.