Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD KHAN VS Respondent: THE STATE
P L D 1993 Peshawar 98
P L D 1993 Peshawar 98
Before Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, J
MUHAMMAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Cr. R. No.26 of 1993, decided on 3rd March, 1993.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 501‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.279/337/320‑‑‑Amount of bond, enhancement of‑‑‑Magistrate releasing the accused on bail against bonds alone was competent to enhance the amount of bond by virtue of S.501, Cr.P.C.‑‑ Complainant's application for enhancement of the amount of bond was, therefore, not maintainable before the Sessions Court which could not even be treated as a revision or appeal‑‑‑Sessions Courts' order enhancing the amount of bond was consequently set aside with direction to the accused to approach the Court of Magistrate for his release against fresh surety bonds.
Alla‑ud‑Din Khan for Petitioner.
M. Ismail Fahim, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
M. Iqbal Khalil for the Complainant.
Date of hearing: 3rd March, 1993.
JUDGMENT
This criminal revision petition arises in the background of facts that Muhammad Khan, accused‑petitioner, a driver of a vehicle charged for offence under section 279/337/320, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No. 528, Police Station Chamkani dated 30‑12‑1992 was admitted to bail by the Magistrate Ist Class against bonds in the sum of Rs.70,000 each furnished by his two sureties, that the complainant filed application under section 501, Cr.P.C. for the enhancement of the amount of the bond in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar and before whom the sureties of the accused‑petitioner had also moved an application for their discharge from the liability of bail bonds due to the accused‑petitioner's. remaining casual in attendance in the Court, that by the impugned order dated 26‑1‑93 he discharged the sureties from the liability of bail bonds and also ordered for enhancement of the amount of bond from Rs. 70,000 to Rupees Six Lakh of two local and reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the Clerk of Court of Sessions Judge, Peshawar.
2. At the outset the learned Assistant Advocate‑General pointed out a basic flaw in the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in having taken cognizance of the application for enhancement of the amount of bond under section 501, Cr.P.C: which application was in fact to be filed before the Court releasing the accused against surety bonds and not a higher Court in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. The complainant's application culminating into the impugned order was thus found filed before a wrong forum. Complainant's said application cannot also be treated as revision or appeal as against the order of the Magistrate thereby releasing the accused on bail against bonds for the Code of Criminal Procedure has vested a power in the Court of Magistrate itself granting the bail to enhance the amount of bond by virtue of section 501, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the complainant was not found with a plausible answer to the preliminary objection raised by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General vis‑a‑vis the maintainability of his application before the Sessions Judge for the enhancement of the amount of bond under section 501, Cr.P.C. This Court would, resultantly, accept this criminal revision petition, set aside the impugned order of Additional Sessions Judge IV, Peshawar and would direct the accused‑petitioner to approach the Court of Magistrate for his release against fresh surety bonds since right or wrong earlier bail bonds have since been cancelled by the impugned order. The Court of Magistrate shall also issue a notice to the complainant before releasing the accused against fresh bail bonds.
N.H.Q./1448/P Revision accepted.