AMANOWEL MASIH vs DEWID BAIDI and anothers
This criminal miscellaneous petition arises from an order dismissing an application for the cancellation of bail granted to an accused in a private complaint. The petitioner filed a private complaint under sections 380, 468, 471, 506, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the Magistrate summoned the accused under section 380. Subsequently, the Magistrate granted bail to the accused, which the petitioner sought to cancel under section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before the lower forum, which was dismissed. The core legal question was whether the bail granted by the Magistrate was illegal or warranted cancellation. The Lahore High Court held that the initial summoning order had attained finality as it was never challenged, the subsequent bail order was merely a continuation thereof, and the discretionary power to grant bail was not exercised illegally. The court laid down the principle that an unchallenged summoning order attains finality and a consequential bail order in a complaint case cannot be interfered with lightly when discretion is properly exercised.
- Whether an unchallenged summoning order passed by a Magistrate attains finality?
- Can bail granted by a Magistrate in a complaint case be cancelled without showing illegal exercise of discretion?
- Does a subsequent bail order in continuation of an unchallenged summoning order warrant interference by the High Court?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.---Facts in brief as narrated in the petition are that Amanowel Masih, had filed a private complaint under sections 380/468/471/506/34, of the P.P.C., against Christofer Masih and others. After recording the preliminary evidence, learned Magistrate summoned the accused under section 380 of the P.P.C., through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,20,000 each. This order was passed on 1-4-2005. David Baidi, one of the accused appeared on 14-12-2005, and learned Magistrate granted him bail in the sum of Rs,20,000 on the same day. Aggrieved from that order, the petitioner/complainant filed anapplication under section 497(5) of the Cr.P.C. For cancellation of bail of David Baidi, one of the accused before learned Addl. High Court Judge, Sadiqabad which application was dismissed on 25-5-2005, hence this criminal miscellaneous.
2. Learned counsel submits that learned Magistrate has wrongly granted bail to the accused on 14- 12-2005. The offence with which the accused was charged had attracted the punishment of seven years but the learned Magistrate had considered it as three years, therefore, bail granted to the accused may be cancelled. It has further been argued by the learned counsel that both the Courts below have not adverted to the true facts and have not kept in view the evidence so the accused was not entitled for grant of bail.
3. After considering the arguments of learned counsel and from the perusal of the record, I have found that initial order for summoning the accused was passed on 1-4-2005, by learned Magistrate which order had not been challenged by the present petitioner and the same had obtained finality. The order, dated 14-12-2005 is, in fact, the continuation of earlier order of dated 1- 4-2005, which cannot be considered to be a new or fresh order, having been passed by the learned magistrate. Moreover the grant of bail is a discretionary power of learned Magistrate in a complaint case which has not been shown to have been exercised illegally or unlawfully. The petitioner has not filed any revision against order, dated 1-4-2005, and 14-12-2005, so orders passed by both the learned Courts below need no interference of this Court resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed.