Court can issue warrants or resort to sureties for appearance of accused
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case from the Peshawar High Court dealt with the question of who is responsible for ensuring an accused person shows up in court. The accused, Sher Afzal, had been charged in a case registered under the Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance and was granted bail by a magistrate. The complainant, Noor Muhammad, later asked the Sessions Court to cancel that bail, apparently because the accused was not appearing. The Additional Sessions Judge refused to cancel the bail, reasoning partly that the complainant had failed to point out or help locate the accused, who belonged to a different area.
The High Court found this reasoning flawed. It held that it is never the complainant's job to secure the attendance of an accused person in a criminal case. That responsibility lies with the State, and specifically the police, who must trace and produce the accused when summoned. The court also noted that when an accused cannot be found, the proper legal tool is to proceed against the sureties who guaranteed his appearance, not to blame the complainant.
Because the Sessions Court had wrongly placed this burden on the complainant and never even issued notice to the sureties, the High Court set aside its earlier order and sent the bail-cancellation matter back for a fresh decision on its actual merits. This judgment is significant because it clarifies that complainants should not be penalized for the State's failure to produce an accused, reinforcing that police and sureties bear that responsibility.
پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے اس مقدمے میں یہ سوال زیرِ بحث آیا کہ ملزم کی عدالت میں حاضری یقینی بنانا کس کی ذمہ داری ہے۔ ملزم شیر افضل کے خلاف زنا (نفاذِ حدود) آرڈیننس کے تحت مقدمہ درج کیا گیا تھا اور مجسٹریٹ نے اسے ضمانت دے دی تھی۔ بعد ازاں مدعی نور محمد نے سیشن کورٹ سے درخواست کی کہ یہ ضمانت منسوخ کی جائے، بظاہر اس بنیاد پر کہ ملزم عدالت میں پیش نہیں ہو رہا تھا۔ ایڈیشنل سیشن جج نے ضمانت منسوخ کرنے سے انکار کر دیا اور اس کی ایک وجہ یہ بیان کی کہ مدعی نے ملزم کی نشاندہی یا اسے تلاش کرنے میں مدد فراہم نہیں کی، جو کسی دوسرے علاقے سے تعلق رکھتا تھا۔
ہائی کورٹ نے اس استدلال کو غلط قرار دیا۔ عدالت نے کہا کہ فوجداری مقدمے میں ملزم کی حاضری یقینی بنانا کبھی بھی مدعی کی ذمہ داری نہیں ہوتی۔ یہ ذمہ داری ریاست پر، اور خاص طور پر پولیس پر عائد ہوتی ہے، جسے طلب کیے جانے پر ملزم کا سراغ لگا کر اس
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 1996 Cr.C. ( Peshawar ) 1968 Present: SARDAR MUHAMMAD RAZA, J. NOOR MUHAMMAD-Complainant versus SHER AFZAL and another-Respondents Criminal Miscellaneous No. 877 of 1995, decided on 8th April, 1996. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-- —S. 514-Attendance of accused in Court, procurement of~No burden on complainant-No burden on a complainant to procure the attendance of an accused-It being a liability of the State, it is the job of the police to trace him and to produce him in compliance with the notice summons or warrants issued by the Court--If the accused is not traceable or he has changed his address without intimation to the law enforcing agencies, Courts can always resort to the sureties in order to procure his attendance. [P. 1969] A & B (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)- —Ss. 497(5) & 439--Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VE of 1979), S. 5/10/11-Cancellation of bail-Sessions Court had wrongly burdened the complainant for the production of accused and had not at all given any notice to the sureties to appear and to produce the accused in Court-Complainant had been condemned for no fault and his application for cancellation of bail had been rejected on wrong premises without adhering to the merits-Order of the Sessions Court was set aside under S. 439, Cr.P.C. and the application was sent back to Sessions Court for disposal on merits in the light of the observations of High Court. [Pp. 1969 & 1970] C Mr. Tasleem Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner. Malik Hamid Saeed, Addl. A.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 8.4.1996. JUDGMENT Respondent Sher Afzal son of Dina Gul resident of Sadda, Parachinar, with reference to F.I.R. No. 191, dated 18.2.1992, Police Station Faqir Abad was charged under section 5/10/11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 on the basis of a report lodged by Noor Muhammad son of Wakil Muhammad. He was released on bail by Magistrate 1st Class, Peshawar on 6.2.1995 against which Noor Muhammad filed a petition for cancellation. Mr. Ziauddin Siddiqi, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar vide his order, dated 30.7.1995 refused to cancel the bail and hence Noor Muhammad has moved this Court for such cancellation.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has mainly refused cancellation on the ground that the accused belonged to Parachinar and that the complainant had failed to make any pointation. It appears to have been ignored by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that in criminal cases it has never been the burden of a complainant to procure the attendance of an accused. It is a liability of the State and it is the job of the police to trace him and to produce him in compliance with the notice, summons or warrants issued by the Court.
3. The provision of sureties while executing a bond is provided in law also to ensure the attendance of an accused. If the accused is not traceable or if his address is changed without intimation to the law enforcing agencies, the Courts can always resort to the sureties in order to procure attendance of an accused.
4. In the instant case the learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly burdened the complainant for the production of accused and has not at all given any notice to the sureties to appear and to produce the accused in Court. The complainant has been condemned for no fault and the bail cancellation application was thus wrongly rejected on wrong premises and without adhering to the merits. The order, dated 30.7.1995 is set aside under section 439, Cr.P.C. and the present application is accepted to the effect that the bail cancellation application, Noor Muhammad v. Sher Afzal etc. pending before Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar is restored and the learned Judge is directed to dispose of the same on merits and in the light of this Court's observations. Petitioner to appear before the aforesaid Court on 15.4.1996. (M.A.A.) Case remanded.