Case Details

Citation(s)
1971 SLG 3002 1971 SLD 3002 = 1971 PCRLJ 4
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2288 of 1965, decided on 17th August 1965.
Presented By: Muhammad Gul, J
Khan Bahadur Mushtaq Hossain for Petitioners. Javaid Hashmi for the State.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 3 OTHERS-Accused-Petitioners

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 497(5), 17(4)

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497(5) road with S. 17(4) and High Court Rules and Orders, Vol. III, Chap. X, Para. 8-Bail, cancellation of-Jurisdiction-Additional District and Sessions Judge entertaining application for cancellation of bail during temporary absence of Sessions Judge-Additional Sessions Judge, held, could hear only urgent applications for bail and not applications for cancellation of bail Additional Sessions Judge, held further, wrongly assumed jurisdiction-Bail confirmed.   ORDER This is a miscellaneous criminal application under section 439(t), Cr. P. C. against the order dated 10th of August 1965, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhelum, whereby he set aside the order dated 31st of July 1965, of the learned Additional District Magistrate, Jhelum granting bail to each of the four petitioners in a case registered against them under section 307/34, P. P. C. 2. The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is attacked both on the ground of want of jurisdiction and on merits. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urges that during the absence of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhelum, the Learned Additional Sessions Judge could hear only urgent applica tions for bail and he was not empowered to hear an application for the cancellation of the bail. In this behalf, learned counsel relies upon paragraph 8 of Chapter X of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume III which provides that in the case of an un-avoid, able absence of Sessions Judge, he has to make arrangement under section 17(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code for the hearing of urgent bail applications. According to rule 15 ibid all bail applications are to be treated as urgent petitions there is, however, no provision in the Rules and Orders of the High Court requiring an application for tile cancellation of the bail to be treated as' an urgent petition. On the basis of these provisions, it is urged that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had no power ether to, entertain or to hear the application…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register