Al Wakeelo logo

Al Wakeelo

Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty

Initializing Secure Chambers

Cr.Misc. 861/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Gul Bahar (Applicant) — 2024 SHC 1910

Official Citation: 2024 SHC 1910

Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court

Petitioner: Cr.Misc. 861/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Gul Bahar (Applicant)

Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2024 SHC 1910. In this matter between Cr.Misc. 861/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad - Gul Bahar (Applicant) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Cr.Misc. 861/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad CITATION: 2025 SHC HYD 1910 PARTIES: Gul Bahar (Applicant) ORDER DATE: 05-MAY-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Miran Muhammad Shah(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.S-861 of 2024

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

05.05.2025 Mr. Shakir Ali Talpur, Advocate for Applicant. Ms. Sana Memon, Assistant Prosecutor General. -.-.-. Counsel has challenged the Order of Additional Sessions Judge -II Kotri wherein according to him due to absence of the Applicant/Accused on bail notices were issued to the surety of the Applicant/Accused whereas NBWs were issued against Applicant/Accused. It is being the normal procedure however the only lacuna in this Order seems to be that the learned Trial Court which had in a haphazard manner allowed request of the Applicant/Accused with stating the word “ excused” without recalling NB Ws and without asking for any surety since the earlier surety was forfeited. Counsel in support of his arguments relies upon 2009 SCMR 834. Be that as it may, learned Trial Court is directed in such circumstances to make a clear Order in the above matter a fter hearing both the parties as well as Counsel for the State and in light of Honourable Supreme Court’s case law. Let a fresh surety be obtained from the Applicant/Accused. In the above terms matter stands disposed of. J U D G E Ali Haider

Related Legal Research & Directories