| Case ID |
03a5380b-87ed-4c0f-badd-c5a885118290 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Crl. Rev. No. 43212 of 2020 |
| Decision Date |
Sep 22, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Sep 22, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court, presided by Justice Farooq Haider and Addl. Sessions Judge Muhammad Tahir Latif, reviewed the dismissal of Farhan Masood Khan's petition for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner argued that his absence from the court was not intentional but due to his arrest in another case, which should have been managed appropriately by the court. However, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petition on the grounds of non-prosecution. The petitioner contested this decision, asserting that the court should have summoned him from custody to decide on the merits of his bail application. The court recognized the procedural oversight and set aside the impugned order, directing that the petition remains pending and should be reconsidered with proper summons. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to legal protocols to prevent the abuse of judicial processes and ensures that individuals on bail are treated fairly when faced with concurrent legal challenges. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case Crl. Rev. No. 43212 of 2020 adjudicated by the Lahore High Court on September 22, 2020, petitioner Farhan Masood Khan challenged the dismissal of his pre-arrest bail petition. The case revolves around the interplay between the Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, specifically Sections 439, 435, 419, and 428. The petitioner had been granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail for a period which was subsequently extended multiple times. However, during this period, he was arrested in connection with another FIR, leading to complications in his bail proceedings. Represented by advocates Mr. Muhammad Azeem Danyal, Shahid Mehmood Bhatti, and Ch. Faheem Anwar Jajja, Farhan Masood Khan argued that his inability to appear in court was not wilful but a result of his custody in Central Jail, Gujranwala. The court, presided over by Justice Farooq Haider and Muhammad Tahir Latif, acknowledged the procedural lapses wherein the petitioner’s bail status was not effectively communicated to the relevant authorities, resulting in the dismissal of his petition for non-prosecution. This oversight was deemed contrary to established legal principles, prompting the court to set aside the initial dismissal and mandate a reconsideration of the petition with proper summons. Key entities involved include the Police Station Cantt, District Gujranwala, Central Jail Gujranwala, and various prosecutorial and judicial officials. This case highlights critical issues in the administration of pre-arrest bail, emphasizing the necessity for meticulous adherence to legal procedures to safeguard the rights of the accused and prevent the miscarriage of justice. The decision serves as a precedent for ensuring that bail applications are evaluated on their merits, especially in scenarios where multiple legal actions intersect, thereby reinforcing the integrity of the judicial process. Trending legal keywords associated with this case include 'pre-arrest bail procedure,' 'judicial oversight in bail,' 'Criminal Procedure Code application,' and 'penal code sections in bail cases,' which are essential for legal practitioners and researchers focusing on bail laws and judicial protocols in Pakistan. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Central Jail, Gujranwala,
Police Station Cantt, District Gujranwala,
Deputy Prosecutor General, Punjab,
Area Magistrate
|
| Judges |
FAROOQ HAIDER, JUSTICE,
Muhammad Tahir Latif
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. Muhammad Azeem Danyal,
Shahid Mehmood Bhatti,
Ch. Faheem Anwar Jajja
|
| Petitioners |
FARHAN MASOOD KHAN
|
| Respondents |
STATE ETC.
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 1837,
2021 PLJ 550
|
| Other Citations |
Not available
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
|
| Sections |
439,
435,
419,
428
|