ASAD MUNEER KHAN vs The STATE OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR S — 2021 PCrLJ 126 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ASAD MUNEER KHAN VS The STATE OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR S. 561-a---Prisoners from all the Central and District Jails were released on bail by the High Court on the ground that their lives were in danger due to spread of COVID-19---Validity---Jurisdiction of the High Court under S. 561-a, Cr.P.C., could only be exercised in respect of orders or proceedings of a court, executive or administrative orders had nothing to do with such powers---Powers vested under S. 561-a, Cr.P.C. could only be exercised with relevance to judicial proceedings---Words used in S. 561-a, Cr.P.C. i.e. "otherwise to secure the ends of justice", had to be read along with the earlier objects mentioned in S. 561-a, Cr.P.C. and must have some co-relation with them---Said words could not be interpreted to allow the High Court to pass any order in non-judicial proceedings---Words 'ends of justice' means justice administered by the courts and not the justice in abstract sense---Inherent jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked where alternate remedy was available---Powers were meant to meet the lacuna in extraordinary cases and not to vest the High Court with powers to make any order considering the same to be in the interest of justice---Such powers were to be invoked when gross injustice on the face of it seemed to be caused to a party and no other efficacious or alternative remedy was provided to the aggrieved party under law---Supreme Court observed that normal course provided under law, in exercise of the inherent powers, could not be skipped over or diverted from, as had been done in the present case---Such powers could not be extended to uncalled for and unwarranted interference with the procedure prescribed by law, which must be followed---High Court had exercised the powers suo motu while passing the impugned order, whereas, there was no occasion for the High Court to itself register the petitions---Framers of the Constitution had not conferred any such power to the High Court---Had the same been conferred upon, it would have been mentioned in clear terms---action taken by the High Court was without jurisdiction and totally alien to law, hence, could not be assented to---High Court was equipped with no such powers---Law had provided a detailed mechanism for dealing with bail matters---No person could be released on bail save in accordance with law---Said statutory mechanism could not be neglected or bypassed in the garb of declaration of health emergency---Precautionary measures must be taken to keep the prisoners safe from being vulnerable to the disease but the fact was also there that all those steps should have legal backing---Impugned order of the High Court was also against the basic principle of administration of justice---Before passing the impugned order, the High Court had issued unconcerned notices to a number of parties, however, it had forgotten to hear the legal heirs of the victims---In the offences, punishable with Qisas or Diyat, the legal heirs of the victims were necessary parties to be heard but the High Court had passed the order adverse to them without issuance of any notice to them---Supreme Court further observed that said fact amounted to mockery of law and was very unhealthy practice---Impugned order being without any jurisdiction or lawful authority was set-at-naught, in circumstances---Operation of the impugned order having already been suspended by the High Court, the concerned were directed to re-arrest the released prisoners---appeals were disposed of accordingly.

ASAD MUNEER KHAN vs The STATE OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR S — 2021 PCrLJ 126 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 PCRLJ