Muhammad Arshad Khan etc. vs The State etc.

Ijrlrtrt No.l t('.lt)ic- I I I

OR.DEtT SHEE'T IN ]'HIi LAHORII FIIGH COIJIIT

I,AI{OITE.

.t I t)l('1,\1. l)1..1',\lt l'\l |l\'l'

( .r:r' No. Crl. l{r:r'. No.7(rl rtl'2015. Muharnma{ i\rshatl K[an. \'crstts 'l'hc Stalc an(l :rnotllct'.

Sr. No. ol olrlc ti l)rttc ol'orcltt' Orticl u illr siy-ttattu'c ol .lrrd5le . rttrtl tltitt ol [)rocccclitrg l)r'ot r't:r iir rll lrarlrcs tlt cotttrsci, tvlte tc lle c,.:sstttr .

24-07 -2015 Mr Muhammad 7.afat Chaudlrary Advocate, for the petitioner -lariq Mr Javed. DPP on Court's call.

The instant criminal revtsiot-t petrtion has been filecl by the petitioner challenging the order dated 13 7 .2015 passed by the learned Additional Sesstons Judge, Mianwali I he petitioner sought transfer of his ball applicatron from the Court ot lvl r Slr:rfquat Ullah Khan learne<j ASJ. Mianwali. to the Court of Syed Asghar Ali, ASJ Mianwalr. on the ground that earlier three barl applications were withdrawn irorn the Court of Syed As5;har Ali, learned ASJ Mianwali and one barl application of co-accused, namely, Arshad was granted by the satd /r Court and in the lrght of the case reportecl as The Statq !firousf Adyqcale-]Generc! N,W,F,P, \A-Ztrbc1r end a othe1g (P L D 1986 SC 173)

\() l(r I ()l'

2.lt is contended bV the learned counsel for the petitloner that the order passed by the learned ASJ, Mianwali, while drsmrssing the petition has ignored the ludgments passed by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and has erred in law as it was mandzltory upon hrm to adjourn the bail petition of the petitioner while waiting for Syed Asghar Ali, learned ASJ Mianwali, to resume his office as he was not available due to sLlmmer vacattons

On the other hand, learned Distrrct Public Prosecutor has opposed this petition and has supported the order dated 13.7.2015 passed by the learned ASJ Mianwali, on various grounds.

4 Heard. Record perused

5 Mr. Shafquat Ullah Khan, learned ASJ Mianwali, categorically mentioned in the impugned order that specifically order dated 11.7.2015 was passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Mianwali, that he has to deal with the urgenl civil and criminal work of the Court of Syed Asghar Ali, learned ASJ, Mianwali as he was on specral casual leave from 12.7 .201 5 to 1 8.2015 The lv grievance of the petitioner is ill founded l'he petitioner has relied upon the famous judgment reported as The Slale-thlq:rSlt Adysqateqejlera|N W.F P Vs Zubaiq4!

4_qttpts (P l D. 1986 SC 173) which was revisited by

nr( t

tlrr: iiorrcluraLrle Suprentc Cor.rrt of [):tkistan lo Rc,'visrt ' I hc St:.rtel Vs,. lubair" (P I D 2002 [jC ii rr]eanr{rq tirereby that lho s:.rld ludgment does rloI lrold the itt:lrl ,rvhcrern rt was observed that dut: to non ;rvailability oi f ht:

13enchlJudge who had e?tllier dealt wtth ttre barl application owing to exl!lencies of service or ;irlv otlli.)r suflicrent carrse departure has to be nlade irr the lafgcr rnterest of lr"tsticc and reier thc catlse to another tjenchiJudge. A latter r;ase in the sanre thread was thc casr: of ALr SftghAryar v9 Thq State (2008 SCMIi 144i11 lielranct: is placed upon the judoment of the lionourablc Suprenre Corlrl rcported as Nazri 4flned a1!*qnothet V/s Thq S-!il!e and o!rer9 (l'] L.D. 2014 S C 241\ wherein tt has ireen held as Llndel

11 the learned Single .ludge who lrad dealt with the {irst barl application ts rlot available and cleparture from (2) above is unavoidable. thcr learnecl Clrief Justrce concertred Inay refcl the second or subsequent bail applicatlon to anotfrer learned Singlc Judge at the Prrncipal Scat c-t t Pr,.rrnarrent Benches/Circurl lJencfles as thc' case rnay De "Wlrcre the lirst barl application rs lleard and drsposed of by a division llench wllich ts trot avarlable c'ithcr at the l)rirrcrpal Seat or thc ty

V

Pcrnrartent tsenchcs/Crrctl tt Benclles at thel titne ol frlinq of the secorci or subsequetll bail applicatiorr Iftctl such barl application slr:1ll bc heard by;r Diviston tsench of urhtr;h one of tht:

{ lil. l{i \ \r{ }

.JrrdcJr-.s wr.i s; Mc'r't'tber o1 tlte lJtviston []ench whiclr dealt with the first barl applrcation tf !rone o{ the Member s of the Drvrsron Re nch which heard the first bail applrcation rs avarlable tfre; learned Clrief Justrce concernc,d rav asS,gr. tlrc subsequent barl appltcatron lo an)' appropriale Drvrsron ljerrch at the Prtncipal Seat or the Permanent Benches/ Circurt Bernches. as the case rnay be "f he above Inentioned pnnctples of practice and propriety lard down by this CoLitl from timc to trrne havc consistently beert followed bV the coLrrts In the country ever since "

I see no rnftrmtty in the rnrpugned order dated 13 / 2015 passed bv the learned ASJ Mtanwali Relrance rs placed cln the latest pronouncement by tlre aLrqusl Supreme Coutl ol Paktstan tn Nazrr Ahmed anci another Vs The State and others 1P i, {l 2014 S O 241\ Iherelore, the inrpugned order does trol warrant interJerence as the Coutts are not onlr- bound to der:ide lhe cases pendtng before thenr but are also undet the bottnden duty of the earltet disposal of the rnatters as tn the present case lhe Judqe was on special casuai leave how il[r LifgE)nt rr atte r liko thc petrtion can be kept wa |lrr]41 o'

lingering rt on for unexplarnable period. hence. thrs petrtron havrng no merits rs dtsmtssed in limine . r .- --;}-

(SHEFTRAM SARWAR CFi)

JUDGE

APPROVED FOR REPORIING

aY I tnr: tr Munir