2017 PLP 1936 (SCMR)
MAZHAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1936 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ |
| Parties | MAZHAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1936 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1936 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Manzoor Ahmad Malik and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1936 (SCMR) (MAZHAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.
- Ms. Shaista Kaiser, Advocate Supreme Court along with the Petitioner in person.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 21.03.2017 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 2974-BC of 2017)
S. 498
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 17 & 22
Unlawful emigration, receiving money, etc. for providing foreign employment
Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Accused was allowed pre-arrest bail by the High Court
When the accused failed to appear during trial, the Trial Court forfeited his bail bond and ordered to carry out proceedings against the surety and non-bailable warrants of arrest were also ordered to be issued against the accused
Subsequently, the complainant of the case filed a petition for cancellation of bail of the accused before the High Court on the ground of his abscondence from Trial Court which culminated in the impugned order whereby pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was recalled
Perusal of order of Trial Court whereby bail bond of the accused was forfeited, showed that the Trial Court had jumped to the conclusion qua the abscondence of the accused without observing required procedure inasmuch as there was no report as to why the warrants of arrest against the accused were not executed
In such circumstances, the impugned order of the High Court whereby bail before arrest of the accused was recalled was not justifiable in law
Consequently, the impugned order of the High Court was set aside and the order whereby pre-arrest bail of the accused was confirmed by the High Court was restored. Ms. Shaista Kaiser, Advocate Supreme Court along with the Petitioner in person. Zikerya Sheikh, Deputy Attorney-General and Ghazanfar SI/FIA for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.
Crl. M. A. No. 337-L of 2017: For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and delay in filing the criminal petition is condoned.
2. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the learned Lahore High Court in Crl. Misc. No.2974/BC of 2017. Being accused of case FIR No.403/2015 dated 18.03.2015 offence under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, registered at Police Station FIA/AHTC Lahore, the petitioner was earlier allowed bail before arrest by the Lahore High Court vide order dated 06.06.2016 passed in Cr
1. Misc. No.6629/B of 2016, which was recalled through the impugned order.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the available record of the learned trial Court as well as the impugned orders of the learned High Court.
4. Initially the petitioner who is accused of the afore-mentioned FIR approached the learned trial Court for grant of bail before arrest which was refused to him. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned High Court and he was allowed pre-arrest bail vide order dated 06.06.2016. On 21.10.2016, when the petitioner failed to appear before the learned trial Court, the learned Court passed the order forfeiting the bail bond of the petitioner and ordered to carry out proceedings against the surety under section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure and non-bailable warrants of arrest were also ordered to be issued against the petitioner. Afterwards, the complainant of the case filed a petition for cancellation of bail of the petitioner before the learned High Court on the ground of abscondence of petitioner from trial court which culminated in order dated 21.03.2017, whereby pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner in the aforesaid FIR was recalled. Having gone through the order of the learned trial Court dated 21.10.2016 whereby bail bond of the petitioner was forfeited, we are of the view that the learned trial Court has jumped to the conclusion qua the abscondence of the petitioner without observing required procedure inasmuch as there is no report as to why the warrants of arrest against the petitioner issued on 04.10.2016 were not executed. In these circumstances, the impugned order of the learned High Court whereby bail before arrest of the petitioner was recalled is not justifiable in law. Considering all these circumstances, we convert this petition into an appeal and allow the same. Consequently, the impugned order of the learned High Court is set aside and the order dated 06.06.2016 whereby pre-arrest bail of the petitioner was confirmed by the learned High Court is restored. However, since this case pertains to the year 2015, therefore, the learned trial Court seized of the matter is directed to ensure its conclusion expeditiously. It is clarified that if the appellant or anyone acting on his behalf is, in any way, delays the conclusion of trial, the other side (State or the complainant) shall be at liberty to file a petition for cancellation of bail granted to the appellant. MWA/M-40/SC Bail confirmed.