Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ARIF versus STATE

Section 514 Criminal Procedure (XLV of 1860), Sections 324, 148 and 149 of the bond forfeiture charges for which the applicant was on bail, were absent and the applicants failed to present them, on each of them. Applicants proved that the unacceptable order was rigorous and their finances were financially punishable by a fine of up to 20,000 rupees or a default sentence of three months simple imprisonment. Has also not been taken into account and that the applicants are guaranteed to welcome the accused without any financial exploitation, which has led to guarantees. It was a legal obligation under the bonds of guarantees offered by them, that after accepting this responsibility by the applicants, it would not lie in their mouth that their financial condition. Because of this, they cannot pay the bonds executed by them. And while the accused stands on the guarantees of the accused without any profit and no financial gain, the entire amount of the bond cannot be confiscated where one of the accused jumped the bail bond, the whole of the bail. The money will be liable for confiscation, it is his responsibility to guarantee the bail is presented to the accused in court for the trial under which he has already looked into the matter. Reducing the amount in front of a guarantee bond from Rs 50,000 to Rs 20,000, it has been said that there is no reason to reduce the amount further, because the imported order is valid, proper and legal. The amendment will not demand the intervention of the High Court in the jurisdiction. list of supreme court advocates from Mir Ali lawyer