Section 497, 498, 87, 88 Cr. P.C …. Bail refusal of—absconsion of accused could not be refused only on the ground of absconsion—it was yet to be decided while keeping in view the facts, circumstances and merits of the case—absconder, though would lose some normal rights of bail but over all circumstanes had to be seen wihile deciding bail matter— Police and Trial court was to take the steps mentioned in section 87, 88 Cr.P.C to procure the attendance of accused and complete proceedings— If accused would become fugitive from law, it was obligatory on the trail court o initiate the proceedings under section 87, 88 Cr.P.C unless said action was taken accused could not be declared an absconder— Bail of accused could not be refused merely on the ground of absconsion, particailly when the process provided in the criminal Procedure Code 1898 for absconder had not been completed..
Protective Bail… Fundamental right— scope— access to competent court is a fundamental right guaranteed under the constitution—refusal to grant protective bail tantamount to denial of right to access to justice, which is fundamental to and an integral part of rule of law.
Advocate and Pleader— Scope— Pleader is entitled to appear for another and not for himself—- If one wants to represent his/her client as advocate then he (advocate) is not legally entitled to examine himself in place of his party (client) as for such purpose he has to unclothe his status as advocate and has to clothe with attorney/authorized agent.
Negligence of counsel did not constitute sufficient cause
Parties are bound by the acts and omissions of their counsel
in ase of any negligence on party of the counsel, parties could not claim that they were not to be held responsible.
Negligence on the party of advocate, has a binding effect on his client— any negligence on the party of the advocate, was binding upon party which had engaged the advocate— if pary would engage a counsel who was lacking sense of responsibility to the court, it was the party who should suffer and not the other side.
Rule 2 — Exit form Pakistan (control) Ordinance XLVI of 1981.. section 2 placing name of person on the Exit control list…. Ground – pendency of a criminal case.. Name of the respondent bad been placed on exist control list as she was nominated in a case of murder of accustoms officer in connection with smuggling of foreign currency— legality… notification/memorandum. whereby name of respondent was placed on the Exist control list, was issued purportedly for a reason which did not conform to the criteria as laid down in the exist from Pakistan Control Rules 2010 and the exist control policy. Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed by mere registration of a criminal case – Registration of an FIR had no nexus with and was extraneous to the object of the exits from Pakistan control ordinance 1981. Furthermore, while issuing the impugned notification/memorandum the Ministry of Interior had also overlooked an order of High Court whereby the said Ministry was restricted from placing the respondent’s name on the Exist control List has therefore rightly struck off the impugned notification/memorandum – Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly .