WAJID SHAMSUL HASSAN vs THE STATE
This matter originated as a reference from a Special Judge seeking directions regarding an accused who, after being granted bail by the High Court, failed to appear before the trial court and absconded. The core legal question addressed was whether a trial court is required to refer the matter to the superior court for bail cancellation when an accused jumps bail, or if the trial court possesses the inherent authority to act independently. The Court held that while a trial court cannot cancel bail granted by a superior court on merits, it is fully competent to cancel bail and issue non-bailable warrants when an accused fails to attend proceedings or jumps bail. The Court established the principle that trial courts should take immediate, independent action—including issuing non-bailable warrants and initiating forfeiture proceedings against sureties under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure—rather than making unnecessary references to the superior court, which causes procedural delays. Consequently, the High Court cancelled the accused's bail due to his abscondance and directed the trial court to proceed with the forfeiture of the surety bond.
- Can a trial court cancel bail granted by a superior court if the accused jumps bail?
- Is a trial court required to refer the matter to the superior court when an accused fails to appear after being granted bail by that superior court?
- What actions is a trial court competent to take against a surety when an accused absconds after being granted bail?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.---This reference has been made by the learned Incharge Special Judge, (Central-I), Karachi Mr. Farooq Ali Channa in Case No,91 of 1996 arising out of F.I.R.
2. No,13/1996, P.S. F.I.A. CC-1 Karachi under section 409/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3. ' The learned Incharge Special Judge has sought direction for taking action against accused Wajid Shams ul Hassan, who was granted bail by this Court in Cr. Bail Application No,2166 of 1996 on 19- 12-1996. The learned Judge has informed this Court that soon after the grant of bail the accused had jumped the concession of bail and had gone abroad as per statement at Bar filed by his Advocate. Accused Wajid Shams-ul-Hassan is not attending the Court since 24-2-1997.
4. ' The law on this point is settled that if bail is granted by Superior Court then the trial Court cannot cancel the same on merits and trial Court has to make reference to the Court who has granted the bail for appropriate action according to law, but in cases where accused after grant of bail from superior Court fails to attend the trial Court or jumps the bail, the trial Court is competent to cancel the bail for nonattendance of the accused and issue non-bailable warrants in order to arrest the accused. The trial Court is also competent to issue notice to surety under section 514, Cr.P.C. For procuring the attendance of the accused and in case of failure of surety to produce the accused in Court the trial Court is competent to forfeit the bond of the surety as well as personal bond of the accused. This is for the information of all the trial Courts that whenever an accused who has been granted bail by the superior A Courts jumps the bail, the Court should take appropriate action at its own end without making reference to the Superior Court who has granted bail, because in this way they waste considerable precious time and delay the process of Justice. In this case the . Incharge Special Judge has informed that the accused had furnished surety with the Nazir of this Court. Nazir is directed to immediately send the details and particulars of surety to the Incharge Special Judge who will issue notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. To the surety and will issue NBW of the absconding accused and will order forfeiture of surety according to law. The order of forfeiture of surety may be sent to this Court to enable the Nazir of this Court to recover the surety amount. The earlier ing bail to accused in Cr. Bail Application No,2166 of 96 is hereby recalled /cancelled on the ground of abscondance of the accused. The trial Court is directed to issue NBW of the accused according to law and notice to surety.
5. ' Reference made by the learned Incharge Special Judge (Central-1), Karachi is disposed of accordingly.
6. ' Copy of this order be sent to Nazir of this Court for compliance of the order.
7. Bail cancelled.