MUHAMAMD SALEEM AKHTAR vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, which dismissed the petitioner's application for pre-arrest bail due to his non-appearance on the date fixed for hearing. The petitioner, accused in a case registered under sections 324, 452, 337, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, argued that the lower court erred by dismissing the bail application for non-prosecution rather than deciding it on merits, citing illness as the reason for his absence. The High Court examined the record and observed that there was no evidence that a request for adjournment based on illness had been presented to the trial court, nor was any proof of illness provided in the current revision petition. The Court held that the petitioner had a duty to appear in person on the date fixed, and his failure to do so, without justification or proof, justified the dismissal of the bail application. Consequently, finding no illegality in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition in limine.
- Can a pre-arrest bail application be dismissed for non-appearance of the accused when no justification or proof of absence is provided?
- Is it incumbent upon an accused to appear in person on the date fixed for the hearing of a pre-arrest bail application?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' Muhammad Saleem Akhtar, petitioner was an accused in case F.I.R. No,131 of 1991, dated 5-5-1999 registered under section 324/452/337/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Alpa, District Multan. He applied for pre-arrest bail and the same was entrusted to Safdar Hussain Malik, Additional Sessions Judge, Multan who allowed him ad interim bail till 4-9-1999 and on that date the petitioner did not turn up in the Court and the application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner vide impugned order, dated 4-9-1999.
2. The learned counsel has challenged this order through the present revision bail application on the ground that pre-arrest bail application could not have been dismissed for non-prosecution and it was imperative on the lower Court to decide the application on merits as the petitioner did not appear due to his illness. Reliance has been placed on Subedar (Retd.) Abdur Rehman and another v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 61.
3. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. In the impugned order there is no mention that request for adjournment on the ground of illness was ever made before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who decided the pre-arrest bail application. The case referred to by the learned counsel relates to pre-arrest bail application in which this Court was pleased to allow the petitioner ad interim pre-arrest bail and it was directed to the learned lower Court that the application for bail should be considered as pending and be decided on merits as plea for absence of the petitioner on the date fixed was not considered by the learned Trial Court. Through the present petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the lower Court but there is nothing on record to prove that any request was made for adjournment of the case or there was any justification for absence of the petitioner on the date fixed by the Court. The pre-arrest bail was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge till a particular date on which it was the duty of the petitioner to appear in person and it was also the duty of his sureties to comply with their undertaking to produce the petitioner in Court. Neither any proof of illness of the petitioner was produced in the lower Court nor any document has been placed on record with this petition. No illegality in the impugned order has been pointed out. This petition is dismissed in limine having no force.
Revision .