P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

M. Iqbal, for A. G. for Respondent. Date of hearing : 2nd November 1959. The facts out of which this revision petition arises are that Sher petitioner stood surety for one Ahmad son of Shahamand who was being prosecuted under section 109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the bond Exh. P. A., Sher petitioner guaranteed the presence of Ahmad on the due dates in the Court of Mr. Shaukat Ali, Magistrate 1st Class, Jhang, and in case of default of Ahmad to appear, Sher petitioner undertook to pay a sure of Rs. 2,000 to the State. As Ahmad failed to appear before Mr. Shaukat Ali on the 6th of February 1958, a notice under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Proce dure was issued against Sher petitioner to show cause why the amount of surety be not confiscated in favour of the State. In the course of the proceedings under section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure, Sher petitioner admitted having executed the bail bond but contended that Ahmad had been apprehended by the police in some other case and that the petitioner was making a search for Ahmad in order to produce him in Court. By his order dated the 20th of September 1958, Mr. Shaukat Ali, Magistrate, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 1,800 to the State. Sher went up in appeal and his appeal was dismissed by the District Magis trate by his order dated the 17th of October 1958. Sher has now come up in revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the security proceedings fell under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, the Magistrate was not legally competent to order Ahmad to furnish a security bond for his appearance in Court as Ahmad was not an "accused person in any case ". Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads :‑ " When any person other than a person accused of a non bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an Officer Incharge of a Police Station, or appears or is brought before a Court and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer, or at any stage of the proceedings before such Court to give bail, such person shall be released on bail: * * * * * * * ." In view of the language of this section, I cannot agree with the contention of the learned counsel. Section 496 provides that bail may be claimed by " any person other than a person accused of a non‑bailable offence " who " is arrested or detained without warrant by an Officer Incharge of Police Station, or appears or is brought before a Court." This section, however, has to be read along with other provisions of the Code giving a special right of detention to a Court. Thus, under section 107, sub‑section (4) a Court can detain a person brought before it under the circumstances specified therein until the inquiry is completed. In such a case it cannot be said that the arrested person has an absolute right to be released on bail. This has now been made clear by the proviso to section 496, which reads:‑-- " Provided, further, that nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect the provisions of section 107, subsection (4), or section 117, subsection (3)." The proviso to section 496 also makes it clear that the sub stantive part of the section applies to section 117, subsection (3). Section 11‑7 has to be read with section 112 which in turn refers to sections 107, 108, 109 and

110. Subsection (2) of section 117 provides that where the order requires security for good behaviour the procedure prescribed for trial of warrant cases shall be followed save that no charge need be, framed. I feel no doubt that, section 496 authorised the Magistrate conducting the inquiry tote release the person concerned in the inquiry on bail with sureties, to ensure his attendance in Court. U. Gandama v. Emperor (A I R 1933 Rang. 164) and Emperor v. Karbalai Husain Ali Husain Rizir Surety (A I R 1940 Nag. 75) support this view.

3. The learned District Magistrate reduced the amount to be forfeited from Rs. 1,800 to Rs. 1,

000. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner stood surety for a person who was being proceeded against under section 109 of the Code of Criminal Pro cedure, I reduce the amount from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500.

4. Except for the reduction in the amount to be forfeited, the petition is dismissed. K. B. A. Petition dismissed with modification.