Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SALEEM ARIF VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 P Cr
1988 P Cr. L J 1272
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD SALEEM ARIF‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.481/B of 1988, decided on 17th April, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 498‑‑Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.17/22‑‑Passport Act (XX of 1974), S.6‑‑Pre‑arrest bail‑‑Special Judge having not considered bail application of accused on merits rejected same on ground of non‑appearance which was in fact due to illness of accused for which a medical certificate of his ailment was produced‑‑Special Judge directed by High Court to consider application of accused on merit in particular circumstances of case, in case accused moved fresh application before Special Judge.
Mian Muhammad Hanif Tahir for Petitioner.
Faiz‑ur‑Rehman for the State.
ORDER
The facts giving rise to this petition for pre‑arrest bail to Muhammad Saleem Arif petitioner are that on 7‑1‑1986 a case under sections 17 and 22 of Immigration Ordinance and section 6 of the Passport Act was registered against the petitioner and Nazir Ahmad. The petitioner was arrested. He filed application before the learned Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi Camp at Faisalabad for his release on bail. On 4‑6‑1986 learned Special Judge (Central), Rawalpindi, allowed him ad interim bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount. The case was adjourned from time to time and was finally fixed for hearing on 13‑9‑1987. The petitioner did not appear on that date. So learned Special Judge rejected the application mainly on the ground of his intentional non‑appearance although medical certificate with regard to his ailment was produced before him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co‑accused Nazir has already been allowed bail; that the case of the petitioner is identical with his co‑accused; that the petitioner had been appearing before the learned Special Judge from time to time and it was on account of his ailment that he could not appear before the Court on 13‑9‑1987 when the application was rejected. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. Learned Special Judge (Central) has not considered the bail application of the petitioner on merits. He rejected it on the ground of non‑appearance although the medical certificate of his ailment was produced before him. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, I feel that it would be in the fitness of things that the application of the petitioner is considered by the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore on merits. To enable the petitioner to appear before the learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore and move fresh application for bail, it is directed that he shall not be arrested till 23‑4‑1988. The petitioner undertakes to be present before the learned Special Judge on each and every date of hearing. The learned Special Judge (Central) Lahore will decide the bail application of the petitioner on merits. The application is disposed of accordingly.
M.Y.H./M‑720/L Petition returned.