1990 P Cr (PLP)

The present criminal revision petition is directed against the order of Ch. Abdul Majeed, M.I.C. trial Court, dated 12-1-1989, whereby he cancelled the bail of the present petitioner, granted to him by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide his order dated 26-11-1986.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the said order on the following ground:- "That the learned trial Court was not empowered by the Court granting the bail to the petitioner to cancel the said bail under any circumstances, and that, therefore, the said order, granting bail to the petitioner, could only be recalled/cancelled by the Court that had passed the said order i.e. the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, and it is further contended that the said order granting the bail could only be recalled or cancelled aft issuance of a notice to the petitioner:

3. In suppor o is contention the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Manzoor Ahmad Bhatti v. State 1985 P Cr. L J 1558 wherein it was held that the cancellation of the bail granted by Supreme Court or by the Sessions Court on the ground that the accused had not attended the trial, was not warranted, and that in such cases the Sessions Court can only issue non-bailable warrants for arrest and production of accused and can also proceed against surety under section 514, Cr.P.C. but it has no authority to cancel the bail, and it was further held therein that the High Court finding that the impugned order cancelling bail of accused/petitioner being illegal, the revision petition was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court, setting aside the impugned order and admitting the petitioner to bail.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C., which is as follows: "A High Court or Court of Sessions and, in the case of a person released by itself, any other Court may cause any person who has been released under this section to be arrested and may commit him to custody." And contended that in accordance with the above, it was only the High Court and a Court of Sessions, and in the case of a person released by itself, any other Court who could order the arrest and commitment to custody of a person released under the said subsection, therefore, it was further contended that as in the present case, the petitioner had been released on bail by the leas lied Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 26-11-1986, therefore, the trial Court was not competent to cancel the order granting bail nor order arrest or the commitment to custody of the petitioner and that the order to that effect by the learned trial Court was patently illegal and contended for the said order to be set aside.

5. The learned counsel for the State conceded that in accordance with subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C. the impugned order was not sustainable in law. The learned counsel for the State, further pointed out, that in this respect, the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, 1985 P Cr. L J 1558, is applicable to the present case.

6. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, the impugned order being against the law, and placing reliance on the authority cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also relied upon by the learned counsel for the State, the impugned order dated 12-1-1989, passed by Ch. Abdul Majeed, MIC/Trial Court, Lahore, is hereby set aside and the present criminal revision petition is hereby allowed to that extent.

7. However, as the petitioner is not present in the Court today, therefore, the order dated 22-11-1989 whereby the petitioner was admitted to ad interim bail before arrest is not confirmed. N.H.Q/A-1036/L Revision petition accepted.