Kishwar Khan vs State

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT,

PESHAWAR

(Judicial Department)

Cr.R. No.72-P/2014

Date of hearing: 08.12.2014

Petitioners (s) : Kishwar Khan by Mr. Niaz Ali Khan, Advocate.

Respondent(s) :The State by Mr. Rab Nawaz Khan AAG.

JUDGMENT

ASSADULLAH KHAN CHAMMKANI, J.- Petitioner Kishwar Khan, is aggrieved from partial direction contained in order dated 23.04.2014, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge-V, Peshawar whereby he has been enlarged on bail subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- in cash as well as furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount.

2.Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that conditional bail order of the learned lower court directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- in cash is in utter violation of the law, therefore, liable to be reversed.

3.Conversely, learned A.A.G. contended that petitioner was habitual absentee, as a result, his bail was once recalled, hence, by virtue of his conduct the learned *M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D

lower Court was constrained to pass such conditional order so as to ensure his attendance in future, thus, impugned order is not open to any interference.

4.Arguments heard and record perused.

5.Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No.46 dated 01.03.2006, registered under sections 419/420/468/471 PPC, at Police Station Mathra, who was earlier released on bail, but during trial he remained absent, therefore, his bail was recalled and was proceeded under section 512 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 07.10.2013. Later on, petitioner was arrested again; so he approached the learned Trial Court for his release on bail, resultantly, he was allowed bail vide impugned order, hence, this petition.

6.Perusal of the impugned order divulges that condition of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in cash has been imposed on the petitioner. The condition may be look justifiable keeping in view the past conduct of the petitioner, but at the same time, any order passed by any judicial Officer must have a legal sanction to support it.

Thus, the impugned order subject to the condition of deposition of Rs.50,000/- in cash being against the law governing the bail, is not sustainable. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and aforesaid condition stands deleted *M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D

from the impugned order, however, keeping in view the past conduct of the petitioner, the amount of bail bonds worth Rs.50,000/- is increased to Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

7.With the above modification, this petition is disposed of accordingly.

Announced.

JUDGE

*M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D

maintained that the learned Trial Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit and in case of decision of issue of the jurisdiction in favour of the *M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D

petitioners, after conclusion of trail, it would be respondent to suffer and she is ready to face the consequences of such scenario. He while supporting the impugned orders, sought dismissal of the instant petition.

5.Come what may, the issue raised, being a mixed question of law and fact, can properly be resolved, after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties by the learned Trial Court. In view of the above, the impugned orders of both the courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court with the direction to frame a specific issue (qua) jurisdiction, if already not framed, to afford an opportunity to the parties for leading their evidence and then to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law. The learned Trial Court shall conclude the trial as early as possible, but not later than 4 months, on receipt of the record. Office shall ensure *M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D

*M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D

*M.Siraj Afridi P.S. D