FAIZ MUHAMMAD AND Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had cancelled the appellants' bail due to their non-appearance. The core legal question was whether the High Court's order cancelling bail for non-appearance should be sustained when the appellants claimed they were never served with notice due to incomplete addresses provided by the State, and whether they should be afforded an opportunity to be heard on the merits. The Supreme Court, agreeing with the State's contention that the appellants ought to have surrendered before the High Court to seek relief, held that the bail cancellation order was based on procedural default rather than a consideration of the merits of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the appellants to appear before the High Court on a specified date, thereby allowing the High Court to reconsider the bail application on its merits. The key principle established is that an accused should be given an opportunity to be heard on the merits of a bail cancellation application if their initial non-appearance was not willful.
- Can a bail cancellation order based on non-appearance be set aside if the accused claims lack of service of notice?
- Is an accused required to surrender before the High Court to have a bail cancellation matter reconsidered on its merits?
- Should a bail cancellation order be set aside if it was passed due to procedural default rather than on the merits of the case?
1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we have decided to convert this petition into an appeal and to dispose it of accordingly.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that in fact incomplete addresses of the appellants were supplied by the State, with the result that the appellants were never served with the orders of the High Court in connection with the application for cancellation of bail. He submits that there has been never any question of the appellants absconding or willfully defaulting in appearance before the High Court, and it is for this reason that they are present today before this Court.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate General, Sind, submits that the appel--lants should have surrendered be ore the High Court, if indeed they want their case to be considered on merits. We are in agreement with the submis--sion made by the learned Assistant Advocate-General, for we find that the appellants' bail has not been cancelled on merits, but because of their failure to appear before the High Court. We would accordingly accept this appeal to the extent that the order of the High Court dated the 28th of July 1975 is set aside, and the appellants are directed to appear before the High Court on 9-1-76, so that their case for the grant or cancellation of bail may be considered on merits.