' MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI, J.-Muhammad Akhtar son of Muhammad Khan, petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,82 of 2008 dated 22-2-2005 registered under sections 302/324/148/149/109 P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar District Mandi Bahauddin.
2. Nasir Mehmood son of Muhammad Aslam, complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner and 13 others in which he was summoned and the learned trial Court released him on bail upon submission of bail bonds required to be submitted under section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The case of the petitioner is that case F.I.R. No,82 of 2008 dated, 22-2-2005 registered under sections 302/ 324/148/149/109 P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar District Mandi Bahauddin was registered against him and his co-accused. He was allowed bail by the apex Court in Criminal Appeal No,69 of 2008 decided on 24-3-2008.
' The complainant Nasir Mehmood also filed a complaint under the same section of P.P.C. Against him and 13 others in which he was summoned by the learned trial Court. He was required to submit surety bonds under section 91 Cr.P.C. He had been appearing before the Court regularly but on 24- 1-2008, he became absent and the learned trial Court cancelled his bail and proceeded against his sureties under section 514 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court also issued non-bailable warrants of arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner applied the learned trial Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail which was dismissed vide order dated 29-3-2008 declaring that the petitioner was nominated in the complaint with a specific role and that the pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief which is discretionary in nature and meant for innocent persons. The petitioner has failed to prove any mala fide on the part of the complainant as well as on the police. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court for the grant of pre-arrest bail. He was allowed ad-interim pre-arrest bail and this Court allowed him ad interim relief on 9-7-2008.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, this Court has concluded that in a complaint case the trial Court issues the process under section 204, Cr.P.C. To procure the attendance of the accused. This process may be issued in the shape of summons or warrants of arrest of the accused. Once the accused appears before the learned trial Court, he is dealt with under section 91, Cr.P.C. And required to submit surety bonds to regulate his attendance before the learned trial Court. If the accused absents from the learned trial Court, his bail cannot be cancelled and at the maximum he can be asked to submit fresh surety bond and the previous surety may be proceeded under section 514, Cr.P.C. While holding so I am inspired by the dictum of this Court reported as Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2359. This judgment was assailed in the apex Court in Criminal Petition No,20 of 1986 and the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Rahim Dad v. Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah etc. Upheld the order of the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 26-5-1986. Same principle was adjudicated by this Court in the case of Muhammad Ijaz v. Nadeem and 3 others PLD 2006 Lahore 227. The contrary view was taken by the Sindh High Court in the case of Noor Nabi and 3 others v. The State 2005 PCr.LJ 205 but respectfully submitting that the said judgment cannot carry field in view of the judgment of the apex Court in Rahim Dad case, supra.
5. In the present case, the learned trial Court should not have cancelled the bail. At the most he could have passed an order forfeiting the surety bond having been submitted by the petitioner and if needed to proceed against the surety under section 514 Cr.P.C.
6. The learned trial Court has not adopted the course in the light of the judgment of the superior Courts. He dealt with the bail matter of the complaint case in accordance with the provisions of sections 497/498 Cr.P.C. Such a tendency cannot be appreciated.
7. In the above circumstances, the present petition is accepted and the petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court and submit fresh surety bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 with one surety in the like amount as required by section 91 Cr.P.C.
8. Present petition stands disposed of with these observations.