Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 887 of 1969, decided on 13th August 1969.

S. 501, read with S. 514‑A‑‑Surety‑‑‑Accused originally bailed out on j4rnishing security of Rs. 5,000, absenting himself from Court‑‑Accused arrested and ordered tuftrnish security in enhanced amount of Rs. 10,000 Case, held, governed by S. 514‑A, and not by S. 501, and accused liable to furnish security only in accordance with original order.

M. Afzal Siddiqi for Petitioner.

Nazar Muhammad for the State.

In this case originally the High Court had allowed bail to the petitioner on his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with one surety in the like amount. Afterwards he absented himself from the Court and his bail bond was cancelled. Subsequently he was arrested again and sent to the judicial lock‑up. Thereafter the learned Magistrate Ist Class, Sialkot again allowed bail to the petitioner but in the sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties on 18‑6‑69. Hence his revision against the order against the increase in the amount of the surety demanded from the petitioner.

In my opinion, section 501, Cr. P. C. has no application. It cannot be said that the surety has become insufficient in this case, and the Court was not justified in relying on this provision in support of the order. I find that section 514‑A of the Code is attracted to this case and the petitioner was liable to furnish fresh security in accordance with the direction, of the original order.

Under the circumstances I accept this revision and in modification of the order passed by the Court below the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 only with one surety in accordance with the original order passed by this Court. This order shall be applicable to all the three cases for which the petitioner is facing trial in the Court below.

Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.