UMAR HAYAT vs MUHAMMAD ASGHAR ALI and anothers
The petitioner, a complainant in a criminal case, sought the cancellation of bail previously granted to respondent No. 1, Muhammad Asghar, under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner alleged that the respondent, after being released on bail, failed to appear before the trial court without justification, thereby delaying the trial. The Lahore High Court noted that the trial court had already issued non-bailable warrants against the respondent for his non-appearance. Furthermore, the Court observed that the trial court possessed sufficient legal authority to secure the respondent's presence, including initiating proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, forfeiting surety bonds, and separating the case under Section 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that the trial court was already actively addressing the respondent's absence through appropriate legal measures, the High Court found no necessity to intervene or cancel the bail, and consequently disposed of the petition.
- Does the absence of an accused from trial proceedings automatically necessitate the cancellation of bail?
- Is the High Court required to cancel bail when the trial court has already issued non-bailable warrants to secure the accused's presence?
- What legal measures can a trial court take against an accused who fails to appear after being granted bail?
- Section 295-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 436, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 452, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337H(2), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 512, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner is a complainant of case F.I.R. No,425 registered on 19- 9-2002 under sections 295-B, 436, 452, 427, 337H(2), 148, 149, P.P.C., at Police Station Bhikhi, District Sheikhupura and through this application under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Has sought cancellation of bail already granted to respondent No,1 Muhammad Asghar by this Court vide orders dated 13-6- 2006 passed in Criminal Misc. No,2715-B of 2006 mainly on the ground that after having been released on bail the respondents appeared before learned trial Court on some dates and then absented himself without any justification to cause delay in the trial.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the absence of the respondent from the learned trial Court provides sufficient ground for cancellation of his bail.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents attached with this petition which reveals that against the order of this Court for grant of bail to the respondent the petitioner had approached the august Supreme Court by filing Criminal Petition No,148 of 2006, which has been dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 23-6-2006 and the learned trial Court has been directed to conclude the trial within 4 months. A perusal of the order sheet of the learned trial Court attached with this petition shows that non-bailable warrants have already been issued against the respondent and the learned trial Court is fully competent to cause arrest of the respondent for his failure to appear in the Court and conduct other proceedings against him under section 87/88, Cr.P.C., forfeiture of the surety bonds and can separate his case under section 512, Cr.P.C. By declaring him P.O. The grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed by the learned trial Court by issuing non-bailable warrants against the respondent-accused and I do not find any need to take further action in this petition, which is disposed of accordingly.