This application has beer, moved for cancellation of the order, dated 24-1-1995 whereby the accused-respondents were allowed bail in a case arising from F.I.R. No.445, dated 13-3-1994 under section 302/324/148/149, P.P.C of Police Station "h" Division, Mardan
2. It is to be noted that the accused had earlier approached this Court for bail but their prayer was not acceded to on the ground in this case the petitioners have been held responsible for firing in the F.I.R. As a result of which two prisons lost their lives and four have been injured. Moreover, the involvement of the petitioners in numerous cases is also indicative of the misuse of concession of bail in that as it led to repetition of crimes. However, the learned Sessions Judge thought it proper to allow the accused respondents bail on the alleged non-compliance of section 173, Cr.P.C. This case was admitted to regular hearing on 9-2-1995 with the following admitting note: -- "The bail granted in a double murder case not on merits but purely on single legal/technical ground; deserves consideration. Admit Notice and record."
The next date in the case was fixed as 27-7-1995 on which respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 appeared in person while respondent No-4 was stated to be in jail in some other case and respondent No.1 was absent. Non-bailable warrant was issued against the said respondent and S.H.O. Was directed to appear in person in case he failed to execute the non-bailable warrant in order to give explanation for his failure to do so. All the accused respondents absented themselves on 13-8-1995 and non- bailable warrants were issued against all of them. On 13-9-1995, the Additional S.H.O. Appeared in Court and stated that the accused knew about the proceeding in the case but they were purposely avoiding to appear. The warrants could not be executed even on the next two dates i.e. 1-10-1995 and 8-10-1995. On today's date i.e. 29-10-1995. The S.H.O. Himself appeared and his statement was recorded who stated that the Additional S.H.O. And he himself made sufficient efforts to execute the non-bailable warrants against the accused respondents but they are purposely avoiding arrest. It is also on record that excepting respondents 1 and 4, all the other accused had appeared in Court on 27-7-1995 when the case was adjourned to 13-8-1995. It is thus, clear that the accused knew about the proceedings in bail cancellation application against them pending in this Court. As the statement of the S.H.O. Recorded today as C.W.1 and the order sheets of this Court indicate that the respondents are purposely avoiding to appear in this Court and are intentionally avoiding arrest and the non-bailable warrants could not be executed against A them, therefore, there is no alternative but to recall the impugned bail order. Consequently, while accepting this application, the bail order in respect of Safdar, Toraj, Yaqoob, Mehboob, Daud, Shakireen (respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 7) is recalled and it is ordered that non-bailable warrants should be issues against them.
In case of their arrest, they should be produced before a competent Court of law for further proceedings. The learned Sessions Judge, Mardan, is directed either to initiate himself or direct the Area Magistrate to start the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Against the sureties of the accused for the forfeiture of their bonds as they failed to procure the attendance of the accused in this Court. As Ashraf, accused respondent No.4 is already in jail in connection with another case, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not stress for cancellation of his bail and as against him the application is rejected.