MUNAWAR KHAN vs AHMAD YAR and others
This matter arises from a criminal petition filed under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the cancellation of post-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the Judicial Magistrate, Chiniot, in connection with F.I.R. No. 434 registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Chiniot. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent's subsequent conduct, including breach of a commitment made before the court to make payment and subsequent absconsion, warranted the revocation of his bail. The Lahore High Court held that the respondent's failure to comply with court commitments and his absconsion demonstrated conduct disentitling him to the concession of bail. The court consequently accepted the petition and cancelled the bail already granted to the respondent, establishing that subsequent absconsion and breach of judicial undertakings are valid grounds for bail cancellation.
- Whether bail once granted under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be cancelled on the ground of the accused's subsequent absconsion?
- Does the breach of a commitment made in court regarding payment justify the cancellation of post-arrest bail?
- What is the effect of an accused's conduct during proceedings on the continuation of bail?
- Section 497(5), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J.--- Through this petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. Munawar Khan petitioner seeks cancellation, of to respondent No,1 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chiniot vide order dated 10-10-2007 in case F.I.R No,434 dated 27-8-2007 registered under section 489-F, P.P.0 at Police Station City Chiniot District Jhang.
2. The brief allegation in the F.I.R is that respondent No,1 obtained Rs,6,00,000 from the petitioner/complainant for business purpose and thereafter he put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Then it was claimed and said that the said amount had been deposited in the Bank and he issued a Cheque bearing No,LO-2799039 in respect of Account No,29976-9 on 22-8-2007.
However, when the petitioner presented the same before the Bank, the concerned official of the Bank informed him that there was no amount in the Bank in the name of respondent No,
1. The petitioner again approached respondent No,1 for the return of the money and on his direction he approached the Bank of the return of the amount on 23-8-2007 but the same was not given to him and the Bank informed him in writing about the insufficiency of the funds.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent had made commitment in the Court to pay Rs,85,000 to the petitioner on 23-1-2008 and an opportunity was granted to the respondent by this Court to pay the said amount till 14-2-2008. Thereafter the respondent absconded and did not appear in the Court. Now in execution of warrants of arrest issued by this Court respondent No,1 has been produced by Ghulam Mustafa S.-I. Police Station City Chiniot. The respondent has been asked whether he wants to engage some counsel and in reply to that he has opted to argue the case personally. When confronted with the order dated 23-1-2008 he has not offered any plausible explanation for the non-compliance of the same and his absconsion from the Court. Keeping in view his conduct the bail already granted to respondent vide order dated 10- 10-2007 is cancelled by accepting this petition.