PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1689
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----Ss. 498 & 435--Bail before arrest, grant of--Pre-arrest bail granted by ASJ was recalled, due to non-appearance before trial Court--Petitioner filed a revision application and pray that he wanted to appear before trial Court--Application was passed for further proceedings--Regarding his appearance it would be discretion of trial Court that it may require petitioner to execute a bond, with or without sureties for his appearance--General provisions are provided for issuance of process to compel appearance of all persons through summons, warrants and in case of non-compliance of warrants, then actions by issuing proclamations and attachment and then other rules regarding process--When a person is present, in response to summons or warrant, before any Court who is empowered to issue summons or warrants then such officer may direct said persons to execute a bond with or without sureties for his appearance in such Court--Petitioner has undertaken to appear before trial Court during proceedings of trial of case and has undertaken not to absent himself from trial Court, therefore, petition was allowed. [Pp. 1691 & 1692] A & B
Mr. M. Naeem Ullah Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Laeeq-ur-Rehman, Assistant District Public Prosecutor for State.
Date of hearing: 25.3.2021.
PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1689[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.YOUNAS--PetitionerversusSTATE and another--RespondentsCrl. Rev. No. 221 of 2020, decided on 25.3.2021.
Order
Through this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.09.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan whereby, due to the absence of the petitioner, the pre-arrest bail granted to him was cancelled.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was named as accused in case FIR No. 151 of 2013, dated 08.03.2013, registered at Police Station Muzaffarabad, District Multan, in respect of the offence under Sections 302, 449 and 34, PPC and during investigation of the case, the petitioner filed a petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest bail which petition was allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 07.02.2019. Subsequent to the grant of pre-arrest bail, the petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court after submission of the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. hence, concession granted to him vide order dated 07.02.2019 was recalled by the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 28.09.2020.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the petitioner was not willful rather actuated by the fact that no notice was issued to be served upon the petitioner for his appearance before the learned trial Court. Further submits that the order dated 28.09.2020 was passed in his absence without providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
4. Learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor submits that the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan dated 28.09.2020 suffers from no infirmity, hence, this petition has no force.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Assistant District Public Prosecutor and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner was admittedly granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 07.09.2019 in the instant case and admittedly the said order was recalled on 28.09.2020 due to the absence of the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application before the learned trial Court with the prayer that he wanted to appear before the learned trial Court which had since adjourned the proceedings of the case FIR No. 151 of 2013 sine-die due to absence of the petitioner/accused. Upon the said application of the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan vide order dated 24.03.2021 has passed the order that the file of the case be placed before it on 03.04.2021 for further proceedings.
7. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that now the petitioner has appeared before the learned trial Court and in this manner it would be the learned trial Court which would regulate the matter regarding his appearance before the same in subsequent proceedings and it would be the discretion of the learned trial Court that it may require the petitioner to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in the learned trial Court during the course of trial. Under the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter III, deals with general of povisions which has only one Chapter namely Chapter VI “process to compel appearance”. This is sub-divided into four chapters viz. “A” to “D”. Sub-chapter “A” deals with summons, sub-chapter “B” deals with warrants of arrest, sub-chapter “C” deals with proclamation and attachment and sub-chapter “D” deals with other rules regarding process. Thus, under this Chapter; general provisions are provided for issuance of process to compel the appearance of all persons through summons, warrants and in case of non-compliance of warrants, then actions by issuing proclamations and attachment and then other rules regarding process. In this Chapter forms of summons, warrants, the officers who are competent to issue such process and who are to serve the process, the manner in which process are served and so on so forth are provided. The relevant sub-chapter is sub-chapter “D”. It starts from Sections 90 to 93-C. Section 90 deals with the issuance of warrants in lieu of, or in additional to summons. Section 91 empowers the Court to take bonds for appearance when the persons against whom the process is issued by executing a bond with or without sureties. Sections 92 and onwards are not relevant for the purpose of present discussion. The important provision viz. Section 91 reads as under:
“Section 91. Power to take bond for appearance.--When any person for whose appearance or arrest the officer presiding in any Court is empowered to issue a summons or warrant, is present in such Court, such officer may require such person to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for his appearance in such Court.”
A bare reading of this section reveals that when a person is present, in response to summons or warrant, before the Officer Presiding any
Court who is empowered to issue summons or warrants then such officer may direct the said persons to execute a bond with or without sureties for his appearance in such Court. But for now, for the reason that the petitioner has undertaken to appear before the learned trial Court during the proceedings of the trial of the case FIR No. 151 of 2013 and has undertaken not to absent himself from the learned trial Court, therefore, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted pre-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 800,000/- (rupees eight hundred thousand only) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, in order to enable the petitioner to appear before the learned trial Court.
(A.A.K.) Bail confirmed
0 Comments