Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL BAQUI VS Respondent: SHAISTA KHAN
1981 S C M R 468
1981 S C M R 468
Present : Dorab Patel and Muhammad Haleem, JJ
ABDUL BAQUI-Petitioner
Versus
SHAISTA KHAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 17-R of 1980, decided on 12th May 1980.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-
-- S. 497(5)--Bail, cancellation of-Some clerical or typing error appearing to have crept in order of High Court cancelling petitioner's bail earlier granted by Sessions Judge and perusal of entire order showing bail having been cancelled because of material tentatively implicating petitioner for an offence under S. 307, Penal Code, 1860- Contention that High Court misread orders of Sessions Judge and wrongly assumed Sessions Judge having granted bail before arrest, held, not tenable in circumstances.
ORDER
DORAB PATEL, J.-The petitioner was apprehended his arrest for an occurrence, which took place in Quetta on 11-8-1975, therefore he applied to the Sessions Court for bail before arrest, and an Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, granted him interim bail on 6-10-1979. The case came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 9-10-1979, but as it transpired that the petitioner was charged under section 307, P. P. C., the interim bail granted was not confirmed and he was handed over to custody. But, the Court further observed that the petitioner could apply for bail after the challan had been submitted. The challan was submitted promptly, and so the petitioner again applied for bail on 16-10-1979. Bail was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 20-10-1979 with the observation that "the challan of the case has been put up for trial. The trial of the case would take time for its conclusion". The complainant, therefore, filed an application in the Sessions Court for the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner, but, as his application was dismissed, he challenged the order of the Sessions Court in the Baluchistan High Court. This application came up for bearing before the learned Chief Justice, who noted that the char egg was under section 307, P. P. C. and that the "injuries were on vital parts of his body", therefore, the learned Chief Justice cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the Sessions Judge with further observation "there no bar for the trial Court to entertain application for bail, if any, after recording some evidence, if circumstances permit".
2. The petition for leave has been filed against this order and Mr. Bilal submitted that the Chief Justice had misread the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and assumed that the Additional Sessions Judge had granted bail before arrest. This argument has reference to an observa tion in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned order, but there seem to be some clerical or typing error in the order and a perusal of the entire order leaves no doubt in our minds that bail was cancelled by the Chie. Judge because of the material which tentatively implicates the petitioner for an offence under section 307, P. P. C. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the Chief Justice exercised his discretion arbitrarily or unreasonably.
The petition is without merit and is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.