' Through this criminal revision learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura, dated 2-10-2000, whereby, the said learned Additional Sessions Judge in a complaint case after summoning the respondent, through summons directed them to file bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000. He submits that in the peculiar circumstances of the case when younger son of the complainant has been murdered by the respondents and police with mala fide intention had cancelled the case, the Court in the first instance should have issued non-bailable warrants, that section 204, Cr.P.C. Should be read with section 497, Cr.P.C. Alongwith section 91, Cr.P.C. He has also relied upon PLD 1992 Lah. 444, and 1987 PCr.LJ 532 and 1897.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a great length and have also gone through sections 204, 497 and 91, Cr.P.C. As far as section 497, Cr.P.C. Is concerned, the same is reproduced below:-- "497. When bail may be taken in cases of non-bailable offence.---(1) When any person accused of non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or (imprisonment) for 10 years:
2. In section 497, Cr.P.C. The words used by the statute are that when any accused person of non bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by any officer-in-charge of police station, or appears or is brought before a Court. In my humble opinion, the words give the meaning that the person who has been summoned or himself surrenders before the Court, he may be released on bail but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or (imprisonment) for life or imprisonment for 10 years.
Moreover, the same matter was also examined by this Court while deciding the case of Mazhar Hussain Shah v. The State reported in 1986 PCr.LJ 2359, wherein it was held that:-- ' "Process is issued to the accused when the Court taking cognizable of the offence is of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Such opinion is not to be equated with the existence of reasonable ground for believing that the accused was guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years."
3. In the instant case, F.I.R. Was registered against the respondents but no challan was submitted in the Court, therefore, complaint was tiled. After recording preliminary evidence, Court came to the conclusion that prima facie case was made out, summonses were issued against the respondents and in response to the summonses they appeared before the Court and they were directed by the Court to file bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000. No illegality has been committed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the instant case and particularly, in a judgment, that is, 1987 PCr.LJ 532, it was held by his Lordship that investigation in that case was biased one which is not here in this case.
This practice of summoning the accused through bailable warrants is going on for the last so many years. It is based on good reasoning and interpretation of the statute. No case for - interference is made out, therefore, this petition is dismissed in limine.