Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 1114 of 1964, heard on 13^th February 1970.

S. 514 (I)‑Security bond‑Forfeiture of‑Magistrate cancelling‑ bail granted to accused on date not fixed for hearing and without any notice to surety‑ Warrants of arrest not served on accused and report of serving Police Officer indicating warrants to have been issued on wrong address‑Surety when called upon to show cause against forfeiture of security requesting Court to give him sometime to produce accused‑Accused appearing in Court on her own soon after and stating to have been forcibly detained by co‑accused‑Impugned order forfeiting security in circumstances, held, ill‑founded‑Order set aside.

Sanawan and another v. The State P L. D 1965 Kar. 5 16 and Muhammad Ajmal v. The State 1968 P Cr. L J 782 rel.

Asadullah Khan Bajwa for Petitioner.

Ali Ahmad Awan for the State.

Date of hearing :13th February 1970.

This is a petition for revision of the order dated the 29th of September 1964, passed by the District Magistrate, Sialkot, forfeiting Rs. 500 from the amount of the surety bond furnished by Ibrahim petitioner to ensure the regular attendance of one Mst. Rabia Bibi (an approver) in a case under section 302, P. P. C. pending in the Court of Raja Muhammad Ayub, then Magistrate Section 30, Sialkot, as she had failed to appear in the Court of the District Magistrate, Sialkot, on the 21st of July 1964.

2. It so happened that at one stage the case was submitted before the District Magistrate, Sialkot, for reference to a Tribunal under the West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amend ment) Act, 1964, and in the course of these proceedings the complainant moved for the cancellation of the bail granted to Mst. Rabia Bibi on the ground that the initial order was illegal being without jurisdiction. Consequently, the District Magistrate, was pleased to set aside the bail order on 14‑7‑64 and directed the issuance of warrants for her arrest, for the 21^st of July 1966. These warrants were issued against Mst. Rabia Bibi on the address of Ibrahim petitioner, her surety, but were received back unserved with the report of the A. S. I:, that Mst. Rabia Bibi was living with her mother Mst. Begum Bibi in village Gullanwali in the jurisdiction of another police station. The District Magistrate ordered on the 21st of July 1964, for issuance of fresh warrants for her arrest with a notice to Ibrahim petitioner to show cause on 28‑7‑64 why the surety bond should not be forfeited. Ibrahim petitioner appeared on the date fixed in response to this notice and stated that he had brought Mst. Rabia Bibi for production in the Court and in his absence from the Dera of his counsel some other person had carried her away without his permission and that he should be given some time to produce her. The record shows that no order was ever passed by the District Magistrate on these dates forfeiting the bond but he directed the drawing‑up of a separate file against the petitioner for proceedings under section 514 , Cr. P. C., and served fresh notice on the petitioner for the 11th of August 1964, to show cause why the amount 'of surety bond should not be recovered from him. Although the case was posted to the 11th of August 1964, Mst. Rabia Bibi had presented herself before the Court on the 30th of July 1964 without being served with any warrants for her arrest. She was accordingly sent to judicial lock‑up for detention till the disposal of the case. She had presented an application Exh. P. T., at that time complaining that she had been detained by Ghulam Rasul accused of that case who was on bail and was putting pressure upon her for resiling from her previous statement and that as in the meanwhile the High Court had cancelled the bail of the said accused Ghulam Rasul who had since been rearrested this had given her a chance to escape from the custody of her relatives.

3. The petitioner has also produced two witnesses in support of his contention but the learned District Magistrate was not satisfied with their evidence and observing that the contract had been breached the day Mst. Rabia Bibi failed to attend the Court while the petitioner had only expressed his helplessness in the matter this was only a mitigating circumstance, forfeited Rs, 500 to the State from the amount of his bond.

4. This narration of the sequence of events would indicate that on the 14th of July 1964, when the learned District Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to Mst. Rabia Bibi, neither the case was fixed for hearing before him on that date nor the petitioner had any notice about it, and the warrants of arrest issued for the 21st of July 1964, were admittedly not served on her and the report of the police officer entrusted with the service indicated that the warrants had been issued on wrong address as Mst. Rabia Bibi wars then living with her mother in the jurisdiction of a different police station but the learned District A Magistrate without forfeiting the bond and holding any inquiry, about it jumped to the conclusion that Mst. Rabia Bibi was intentionally avoiding her appearance in that Court and straightaway called upon the surety to show cause why the amount of surety should not be recovered from him. He has thus violated the provisions of subsection (1) of section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as observed in Sanawan and another v. The State (P L D 1965 Kar. 516), and Muhammad Ajmal v. The State (1969 P Cr. L J 782). In fact without the service of any notice .on Mst. Rabia Bibi to appear in his Court the District Magistrate had only presumed that she had absconded and her appearance in his Court within three days of this order had negatived this conclusion. The petitioner himself had requested the District Magistrate on the 28th of July 1964, to give him some more time to produce her in Court and the appearance of Mst. Rabia Bibi in the Court of her own accord so soon after the request of the petitioner indicated that his request was genuine and was. not made with, a view to delay the disposal of the case: The impugned order was. accordingly ill‑founded, and accepting this petition I set aside the same and direct that the amount of Rs. 500 if recovered from the petitioner, be refunded to him.

Petition 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.