1. ' This criminal revision is urged today. One Yousuf Masih was absent on 18-5-1983 and the learned Additional Judge issued non-bailable warrants against him. The learned counsel for the applicants argued that on the perusal of diary, dated 18-5-1983, it does not disclose that the bail of accused/applicant Yousuf Masih was cancelled. Therefore, Yousuf Masih is deemed to be on bail and the issuance of non-bailable warrants was as such illegal.
2. ' I have considered the diary, dated 18-5-1983. Yousuf Masih the present applicant was on bail. His absence from the Court was considered and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. The very issuance of non-bailable warrants tantamounts to cancellation of his bail and this is the only interpretation to be given to the words "issue non-bailable warrants against Yousaf Masih". Now, it is not necessary as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the first instance summons are to be issued and notice to the surety is to be issued and in the second instance bailable warrants are to be issued and in the last resort non-bailable warrants are to be issued.
3. The learned counsel did not .Show me the law on the point that the stages of securing the accused are firstly, summons and then by bailable warrants and then by non-bailable warrants. This criminal revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The learned Advocate has been advised to repeat the bail application before the lower Court. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.