Having been accused of offences punishable under section 365/342, P.P.C. Through F.I.R. No.262/91 of Police Station Ichhra of Lahore, Imran Faisal respondent finally approached this Court through Criminal Miscellaneous No.3784-B/91 for his release on bail.
2. The said bail matter came up before this Court on 23-11-991 when notice was issued in the said matter. On the next date of hearing i.e. 8-12-1991; Mr.Sultan Mahmood, Advocate argued the matter at some length and then prayed for an adjournment on the pretext of further preparing the brief, The case was adjourned to 16-12-1991.
3. This bail matter, however, got listed on 11-1-1992 when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to prosecute this petition. It was then listed on 1-2-1992 on which date, once again no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The matter was again adjourned.
4. It got registered on 2-3-1992 on which date the petitioner was again not represented and consequently I directed the Assistant Advocate-General to find out from the concerned jail and from the concerned police station as to whether the petitioner was still in custody or whether he had secured his bail from elsewhere.
5. The matter then came up before me on 8-3-1992 as directed, when Mr.Sultan Mahmood, Advocate finally entered appearance and informed me that Imran Faisal respondent herein, who was the petitioner in the said bail matter, had since been admitted to bail through an order dated 26-1-1992 passed by a learned Magistrate at Lahore.
6. Having thus noticed the conduct of Imran Faisal respondent herein and his learned counsel, I issued notice to both of them i.e. To Imran Faisal accused to show cause why the bail allowed to him by the learned Magistrate' be not recalled and to Mr. Sultan Mahmood, Advocate to show cause why proceedings should not be taken against him for having appeared and argued the bail matter before the learned Magistrate after having moved this Court for Imran Faisal's release on bail.
7. The matter of notice to Mr.Sultan Mahmood, Advocate is being dealt with independently.
8. In reply to the notice issued to Imran Faisal accused, Mr.Sultan Mahmood, Advocate submits that he was in custody and it was the doing of his brother and relatives that they having earlier moved the High Court, approached a learned Magistrate for Imran Faisal's release on bad and that Imran Faisal cannot be penalised for such a conduct of his relatives and near --ones.
9. This menace of securing bails from the subordinate Courts without disclosing the refusal of the same relief by this Court and at times even during the pendency of the petitions for the same purpose before this Court, is attaining alarming proportions. I have noticed the tremendous growth of such a conduct in more than one judgments and the usual and the stereotype reply by the accused persons always is that he was in custody and did not know of his relatives' doing for his release on bail.
10. The accused persons cannot b--- permitted to play around with the Courts by putting on the garb of their being in custody . Even if it be conceded for the sake of arguments that it was the act of the agents and the relatives of the concerned accused person, even then the accused person concerned cannot be absolved of his liability for the acts of his agent.
11. If the accused person released on bail in the circumstances abovenoticed, owns the acts which have resulted in his admission to bail thenhe is guilty of misconduct and consequently disentitles himself to any relief in equity.
12. In case he takes the plea that the misconduct was not on his part but on the part of his agent, then he has no moral justification to retain the fruit of this misconduct and if he does not elect to surrender the said fruit voluntarily, then this Court has no option but to deprive him of the same.
13. In either of the abovementioned two situations, the accused-- respondent cannot be allowed to remain on bail granted to him above mentioned situation.
14. Resultantly, the bail allowed to Imran Faisal respondent, through an order dated 26-1-1992 passed by a learned Magistrate at Lahore, is recalled.
15. His above mentioned bail application which was filed before this Court bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.3784-B/91 is still pending and shall be listed for hearing in due course.
16. The record received from the learned lower Court shall be returned.
17. The learned subordinate Courts are once again advised to undertake an exercise in each bail matter to rind out, to the best of their ability, that the relief being sought from them had not been earlier refused by the superior Courts or any other Court or that the proceedings for the same relief were not pending either before the superior Courts or any other Court.
18. In future, negligence on the part of the learned subordinate Courts in detection of such a misconduct of the litigants or the counsel shall be seriously dealt with.
N.H.Q./5-91/L