| Case ID |
20734965-fc48-4a25-bb7d-80e8440a1e8a |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeals Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 of 20 |
| Decision Date |
May 05, 2020 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 30, 2020 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court had acted without jurisdiction in releasing prisoners on bail due to COVID-19. The Court emphasized that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code could only be exercised in relation to judicial proceedings, and not in cases involving executive or administrative orders. It was held that the High Court's actions undermined the legal framework governing bail, which must be adhered to even in health emergencies. The Court also noted that the legal heirs of victims were not heard prior to the bail decisions, which constituted a serious legal oversight. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the concerned authorities were directed to re-arrest the released prisoners as the High Court's order lacked lawful authority. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the Supreme Court's review of the High Court's decision to release prisoners on bail due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court scrutinized the jurisdictional limits of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, highlighting that such powers could only be exercised in the context of judicial proceedings and could not extend to administrative actions. The ruling reiterated the necessity of following established legal procedures regarding bail applications, stating that no person could be released without proper legal backing. The Court criticized the High Court for failing to consider the rights of victims' legal heirs before making its decision, labeling the oversight as a mockery of justice. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the High Court's order, reinforcing the importance of adhering to legal protocols even during extraordinary circumstances like a health crisis. This case serves as a critical reminder of the balance between judicial discretion and legal framework, emphasizing that health emergencies do not exempt legal processes from being duly followed. |
| Court |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
SAEED AKRAM KHAN, ACJ,
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
|
| Lawyers |
Tahir Aziz Khan,
Ch. Shaukat Aziz,
Raja Inamullah Khan
|
| Petitioners |
Not available
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL AND OTHERS
|
| Citations |
2021 SLD 376 = 2021 PCRLJ 126
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Ali v. Additional IG Faisalabad PLD 2014 SC 753,
Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Mst. Sofia Waqar Khattak and others 2014 SCMR 122
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
|
| Sections |
561-A
|