' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.---On 2nd of July, 1995 at 8-00 p.m. a case under section 471/420/467, P.P.C. Was registered against Muhammad Saleem Akhtar and Zameer Hussain on the written information of Mir Fazal about an occurrence which took place about 1-1/2 months ago with Police Station Civil Lines District Rawalpindi vide F.I.R. No,380 of 1995. According to the allegations, Mir Fazal was the owner of 500 Kanals of agricultural land in District Islamabad. He was deprived of the said land by the accused on the basis of a forged power of attorney having been prepared in favour of Muhammad Nawaz who, in turn sold 407 Kanals 10 Marlas of land of the complainant on the basis of Mutation Nos.511 and 512.. In lieu thereof, he received Rs,1,22,00,000 (rupees one crore and twenty- two lacs) from the vendees. It was alleged that no such power of attorney was ever executed by the complainant. Raja Ghulam Mustafa, Muhammad Zafar Hussain, Zamir Hussain and Muhammad Salim were also alleged to have participated in the commission of the offences.
Muhammad Zamir, the petitioner in Cr.P. No,57 of 1996 was released on bail by Magistrate Section 30 vide order, dated 23rd of July, 1995. An Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide his order, dated 31st of August, 1996 cancelled the bail having been granted to Zamir Hussain and also cancelled the pre-arrest bail allowed to Saleem Akhtar. After-arrest bail application of Muhammad Saleem Akhtar was dismissed by an Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide his order, dated 3rd of Octobe,r, 1995. Bail applications of the petitioners were dismissed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court vide a common order dated 25-4-1996 observing:-- "Pursuant to order dated 14-4-1996, the matter was placed before me on 17-4-1996. Neither the petitioners nor their learned counsel appeared in Court and applications were dismissed for non- prosecution.
' The petitioners have submitted applications for grant of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard in the matter. It has been contended by the learned counsel that he was busy before other bench in various-matters and could not appear in Court. However, no explanation what's over has been given regarding absence of the petitioners from Court as they were enjoying concession of ad interim bail. The absence of the petitioners was wilful and since no explanation whatsoever has been advanced for their non-appearance before the Court on previous date of hearing, they do not deserve concession of ' pre-arrest bail."
' These petitions have been instituted to call in question the validity of impugned order.
2. It is argued that there was no decision having been given by the High Court on merits. According to the learned counsel, this was a case of post-arrest bail and not a matter which related to the grant of pre-arrest bail relief. It is added that there was no direction of the Court to the petitioner to appear on each and every date in the case.
3. Be that as it may, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel, we have been persuaded to hold that no decision of the application on merits was given by the High Court which was, undoubtedly called for in the given situation. If the High Court considered it appropriate or necessary for the accused to be present on each and every date of hearing, it was required to have given them clear directions to remain present at the fixed dates.
This is evident from the record that it was not done by the Court. This may be the reason for the confusion which happened for the accused to appear or not to appear before the Court on the relevant date. We are, therefore, not satisfied with the reasons of the High Court to reject the bail applications of the petitioners for non-prosecution. In this view of the matter, bail application of the petitioners would be deemed to be still pending adjudication on merits. The petitioners, if so desire, may also give an application to the High Court for obtaining the interim bail relief. With this observation, these petitions are converted into appeals and allowed. The High Court may decide the applications expeditiously on merits in accordance with law.