Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No.212 of 1984, decided on 13th May, 1984.
‑‑‑S.497(5)‑‑Penal Code (XI.V of 1860), S.302‑‑Bail, cancellation of‑ Trial Judge, held, not legally competent to cancel bail granted by Supreme Court‑‑Trial Judge, held further, could only issue non‑bailable warrant for arrest and production of accused before him besides proceeding against surety under S.514, Cr.P.C.
1970 S C M R ' 786 distinguished.
Petitioner in person.
Najam‑uz‑Zaman, A.A.‑G. for the State.
The facts giving rise to this revision petition in brief are that the petitioner was involved in a case under section 302/34/109, P.P.C. registered at P.S. (City) Sheikhupura vide F.I.R. No.361/75, dated 10‑9‑1975. He was allowed bail by the Supreme Court. Since he did not care to attend the trial Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura vide his order, dated 3‑4‑1984 cancelled the bail and issued non‑bailable warrant for the arrest of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has not engaged any counsel to represent him. Mr. Najam‑uz‑Zaman the learned Asstt. A.‑G. appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently opposed this petition. He relied on 1970 S C M R 786 to contend that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was competent to cancel the bail granted by the Supreme Court to the petitioner.
3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Asstt. A.‑G. with tare. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with hire. The case cited by him relates to commitment proceedings and is quite distinguishable. I am of the considered view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ways not legally competent to cancel bail granted by the Supreme Court, Without having cancelled the bail granted by the Supreme Court, he could only issue non‑bailable warrant for the arrest and production of the appellant before him and that he could also proceed against the surety and accused under section 514; A Cr.P.C. but he had no authority to cancel the bail. For all these reasons I am inclined to set aside the order, dated 3‑4‑1984 to the extent of the cancellation of the bail. The direction given by the trial Court for issuance of non‑bailable warrant of arrest is maintained. In case the accused is arrested, brought before the Court or voluntarily appears, the trial Court would release him on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of lts.10,000 with one surety in the like amount.
S. G. D. Revision accepted.
Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer