1. ' Proceedings under the Crime Control Act were started against the petitioner by S. D. M. And Tribunal Shandadpur and non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him. The petitioner then moved a Constitutional petition in the High Court but be was advised to move the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division in the first instance. He then filed a revision application under section 22(1) of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975. The Commissioner, however, insisted on the personal appearance of the petitioner and adjourned the proceedings. On the next hearing the proceedings were ordered to be filed due to the absence of the petitioner and his advocate. On these grounds the petitioner again came to the High Court in revision application under section 21(2) of the said Act. The revision application was admitted for consideration of the above grounds urged by the petitioner. Pending the revision proceedings the petitioner has moved for his release on bail.
2. ' On 19th of March 1976 the R. & P. Were called from the Tribunal. The diary of the case shows that on 12.2-76, 26-2.76 and 10-3-1976 the present petitioner was remanded to custody for want of surety.
3. Even on 24-3-1976 the petitioner was remanded to custody for want of surety. But before sending the record a further order appears to have been passed which is not mentioned in the case diary and this Order also dated 24-3.76 purports to be under section 8(3) (b). Under this order the petitioner was directed to be detained in custody for a period of 2 months or till the proceedings wore over.
4. ' Thus on the one hand the petitioner was remanded to custody on 24-3-1976 for want of surety and on the other hand according to the order included in the file, he was detained for a period of 2 months and there was no question of any surety being accepted.
5. ' It has been argued by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh on behalf of the petitioner that the said order under section 8(3) (b) of the Act has been passed just before sending the R. & P. To the High Court and the order appears to be mala fide. He has accordingly moved this Court for bail taking the plea that a mala fide order is in fact a nullity and this Court should not take this order into consideration while determining the question of bail.
6. ' Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, Assistant Advocate-General has pointed out that the petitioner could move the High Court in revision only against the order passed by the Commissioner and since there is no order of the Commissioner with regard to the order of the Tribunal under section 8(3)(b) this matter cannot be considered by the High Court.
7. ' In this case against the proceedings started under the Crimes Control Act the petitioner has already moved the Commissioner and his revision application has already been dismissed.
8. Against this dismissal his revision petition in the High Court has been admitted. The High Court can certainly pass any ancillary orders for the purpose of effectively deciding the main petition. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the High Court has powers of suspending any such orders pending the hearing of the revision petition before it. Even otherwise the said order under section 8(3)(b) has been passed in a hurried manner after the R. & P. Was called for, without there being any fresh material on record to justify the passing of such an order and without holding any enquiry or recording any evidence to show that passing of such order was necessary on account of any emergency. An order which is on the face of it illegal or mala fide would be an order without jurisdiction. On these consideration I direct that the order under section (3,(6) passed by the S. D. M.
9. And Tribunal, Shandadpur on 24-3-1976 be suspended on the petitioner furnishing a P. R. Bond with one surety in the sum of Rs, 10,000 to the satisfaction of Sessions Judge, Sanghar. .