MUHAMMAD KHAN and 4 others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous petition filed before the Lahore High Court seeking pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 74 registered at Police Station Chaubara, District Layyah, under sections 337-A(ii) and 337-L(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners' earlier pre-arrest bail application was dismissed in default by the Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah, due to their absence. The core legal question concerned whether a pre-arrest bail petition dismissed solely for non-prosecution without deciding the merits warranted relief or reconsideration. The Court held that under the peculiar circumstances, where the petitioners explained their absence was due to offering prayers, protective relief should be granted to enable them to approach the sessions court afresh. The High Court directed that if a fresh application is filed, the Additional Sessions Judge must decide it on merits regardless of the previous dismissal, while specifying that the protective order would automatically lapse.
- Can a pre-arrest bail application dismissed solely on account of the petitioner's absence be decided on merits upon a fresh approach?
- Whether protective bail can be granted to enable an accused person to approach the lower court for pre-arrest bail?
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Crl. Misc. No,1 of 1999 ' Allowed and disposed of.
Crl. Misc. No,838-B of 1999
2. Through this petition the petitioners have sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R No,74 registered at Police Station Chaubara, District Layyah on 10-4-1999 for offences under sections 337-A(ii) and 337-L(ii), P.P.C. An application submitted by the petitioners for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah on 3-5-1999 on account of the petitioners' absence.
3. It has been noticed that the petitioners' application for pre-arrest bail was not decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah on the merits of the case and the same had been dismissed only on account of the absence of the petitioners. It has been maintained by the petitioners in the present petition that they had appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah on 3-5-1999 in the earlier part of the day but at the time of the announcement of the order they were busy in offering Zohar prayers and, therefore, their absence before the learned Court at the relevant time was not willful. An affidavit has been submitted by the petitioners in that regard before this Court.
4. In the peculiar circumstances of this case it is hereby ordered that the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with the abovementioned case till 17-5-1999. In the meanwhile they may approach the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Layyah again for the purposes of their pre-arrest bail, if so advised. In case the petitioners appear before the said learned Court for the purposes of prosecution of their fresh application for pre-arrest bail the same shall be disposed of on merits irrespective of the fact that their earlier application had been disposed of on account of their absence. It is, however, clarified that this protective order shall automationlly lapse at mid-day on 17-5-1999. This disposes of the present petition.
5. Copy Dasti on payment of usual charges.
Cited by 1 case
- Malik Tariq Hanif Awan vs The State & 2 others 2021 P Cr. LJ 250, 2020 LHC 1794