Rana MAQSOOD AHMED vs Rana NAVEED AHMED and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the Lahore High Court granting post-arrest bail to the respondent, who was accused in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding dishonoured cheques. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting bail after the respondent's bail had been previously cancelled by the trial court due to his absence during trial proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent, a Norwegian citizen, had not been properly served with notice regarding the trial proceedings. Furthermore, the trial court had erroneously assumed that the respondent's absence mandated the cancellation of bail, and the Additional Sessions Judge had upheld this cancellation without providing the respondent an opportunity to be heard. Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the grant of bail was justified. The Court affirmed the principle that bail cancellation due to non-appearance requires proper service of process and an opportunity for the accused to be heard, refusing to interfere with the High Court's order.
- Can a trial court cancel an accused's bail due to absence without ensuring the accused was properly served with notice of the proceedings?
- Is an appellate court justified in restoring bail if the lower court cancelled it without providing the accused an opportunity to be heard?
- Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.--- Rana Maqsood Ahmad seeks leave to appeal from the order dated 11-5-2006, whereby, learned Lahore High Court had released Rana Naveed Ahmad, the respondent on bail in case F.I.R. No,151 dated 19-5-2006 of Police Station Model Town Lahore under section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. Both the parties are real brothers inter-se. In connection with some business affair, the respondent is said to have issued two cheques for Rs,95,00,000 and Rs,4,00,00,000 in favour of the petitioner which were dishonoured.
3. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, one does not need to dilate upon because earlier the respondent had been admitted to pre-arrest bail which was maintained by the High Court. It was only for his absence during trial that the bail of respondent was cancelled and he was taken into custody. The High Court released him on bail.
4. It is not disputed that respondent is a citizen also of Norway and usually resides there. It was rightly observed by the learned High Court that he was never served in connection with proceedings at trial. That the trial Court had fallen into a misconception that the absence was bound to entail unto the cancellation of bail under the orders of the High Court That the leaned Additional Sessions Judge had maintained the order of the trial Court without even hearing the respondent whose bail stood cancelled and who was then in custody. There is nothing wrong with the reasons advanced by the learned High Court and hence we could not be persuaded to interfere. The petition is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal refused.