Mst. SALIMA BIBI and others vs THE STATE
This criminal miscellaneous petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which dismissed a bail-before-arrest application for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's absence on the date fixed for confirmation. The core legal question was whether a trial court is justified in dismissing a bail application for non-prosecution solely due to the petitioner's absence, or if it is obligated to decide the matter on its merits. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable as it failed to adhere to established judicial precedents requiring bail applications to be adjudicated on their merits rather than dismissed for default. Consequently, the High Court set aside the dismissal order, restored the bail application to its original status, and directed the petitioner to appear before the trial court. The key principle laid down is that courts are under a duty and obligation to decide bail applications on their merits, regardless of a petitioner's absence, rather than disposing of them on technical grounds of non-prosecution.
- Can a court dismiss a bail-before-arrest application for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's absence?
- Is a trial court obligated to decide a bail application on its merits even if the petitioner fails to appear?
- Does the dismissal of a bail application for non-prosecution violate established judicial precedents regarding the adjudication of bail?
- Section 11/7, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' The petitioner is involved in a case F.I.R. No,244 of 1998, registered under section 11/7, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, at Police Station "A" Division, Okara. The petitioner filed application for bail before arrest and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, granted ad interim bail. Subsequently, on the date of confirmation the petitioner did not appear and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order, dated 20-7-1998.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge should have been provided the opportunity and the case be adjourned for the said purpose. It is further contended that it is the duty and obligation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge to decide the application on merits even in the absence of the petitioner.
3. Learned Assistant Advocate-General appeared on Court's call and he did not seriously oppose the bail petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
The order, dated 20-7-1998 of learned Additional Sessions Judge is not in accordance with the dictum laid down by this Court in 1981 PCr.LJ 61'. As such the impugned order cannot sustain and the same is hereby set aside. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is accepted and the application of the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge is deemed to be pending for adjudication. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Okara on 5-8-1998. The petitioner is also directed to join investigation as and when he required; otherwise this order shall automatically be recalled. Copy Dasti.
Cited by 3 cases
- Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi vs The State, etc. 2024 LHC 2349, 2025 PCRLJ 48
- Shazaib, etc vs The State, etc 2021 SCP 302, 2021 PSC (Crl.) 931, 2021 PLD Supreme Court 886
- Malik Tariq Hanif Awan vs The State & 2 others 2021 P Cr. LJ 250, 2020 LHC 1794