1968 P Cr (PLP)

Ss. 426 & 561‑A‑ Bail bond‑Cancellation of‑High Court enlarging accused appellant on bail and later on admission of revision petition for enhancement of sentence cancelling such bail‑Cancellation of bail, held, justified under wide posters given by S. 561‑A‑Petition for special leave to appeal dismissed‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3). D. M. Awan, Advocate Supreme Court (Wajud Hussain, Attorney (absent)) for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 5th October, 1967. HAMOUDUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan cancelling the bail previously granted by it. The petitioners, it appears, were tried on charges under sections 302/34, 325/34 and 323/34, P. P. C. The trial. Court convicted the petitioner Niwaz under section 302 and the others under section 302/34, P. P. C., and sentenced them all to trans portation for life. The petitioners were also convicted under sections 325/34 and 323/34, P. P. C., and sentenced to various terms of rigorous imprisonment. They preferred an appeal to the High Court and during the pendency of the appeal they were on the 1st of September, 1966, enlarged on bail. The complainant thereafter filed a criminal revision praying for the enhancement of the sentences from transportation for life to death, and also a petition under section 561‑A for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners. On the 28th of June, 1967, the same learned Judge admitted the revision petition for enhancement of sentence, directed notices to be issued to the present petitioners as also issued non‑bailable warrants against them. He also allowed the petition under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., and cancelled the bail earlier granted to them. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal and it is contended on their behalf that since bail was granted under section 426, Cr. P. C., it had no further power to cancel the bail. This contention is clearly misconceived, for, it can hardly be argued that the High Court acted improperly under the wide powers given to it by section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal; Procedure if it followed the procedure that would have been available to a Sessions Judge or a Magistrate to direct pre‑arrest of a person who had been released on bail under its own orders. This petition is, in our view, of no substance and is, accordingly, dismissed.