Petitioner's counsel contended that petitioner filed bail application before the learned A.D.J.
Burewala, who granted at interim bail to the petitioner. Subsequently, the same was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order, dated 11-1-1999.
2. Petitioner's counsel contended that it is the duty and obligation of the learned A.D.J., Burewala to decide the application of the petitioner on merits instead of dismissing the same for non- prosecution.
3. Learned A.A.-G., contended that learned A.D.J. Dismissed the application on account of the conduct of the petitioner as the petitioner did not appear before the Court on the date of confirmation of bail.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties. It is settled proposition of law that it is the duty and obligation of the learned A.S.J. To decide the bail application on merits instead of dismissing the same for non-prosecution as the principle laid down by this Court in Fateh Muhammad's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 874). In view of these circumstances, the order dated 11-1-1999 is set aside: meaning thereby the bail application filed by the petitioner before the learned A. D. J. Shall be deemed to be pending adjudication. The petitioner is directed to appear before The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala on 10-2-1999. The bail bonds already submitted before A.S.J. Shall be treated as valid. Resultantly, this petition is accepted.