Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision No. 47 of 1979, decided on 5th February 1979.
S. 499 read with West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance (XXXV of 1959), S. 8-Bail bond-Law does not envisage furnishing of a security in cash or by a Bank -guarantee-Order of Tribunal requiring petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee instead of bail bond-Held : In excess of jurisdiction and set aside-West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance (XXXV of 1959), S. 8.-[Bail bond].
Abdul Ahad v. State 1970 P Cr. L J 1256 and Lakhi Narayan Kundu v. The Crown P L D 1955 Dacca 84 rel.
M. Rashid Malik for Petitioner.
M. Nasrullah Baig for A: G. for the State.
Date of hearing : 5th February 1979.
Muhammad Riaz alias Leekar has challenged the order dated 11-1-1979 of the Assistant Commissioner (City)/District Tribunal, Lahore, allowing him bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of furnishing a bank guarantee of this amount. As the impugned order is very brief, it is reproduced in extenso being self-explanatory of the reason for directing of Bank Guarantee :-
"Riaz alias Leekar has applied for bail in case under section 13/14 of Goondas Ordinance. The petitioner was on bail in this case but the same was cancelled on 5-4-1973 because of non-appearance. The petitioner did not appear thereafter. He has been recently arrested by the police. The previous surety is not traceable. The petitioner has rated that the whereabouts of the surety are not known to him. It appears that the surety was not genuine person. It is to be noted that the petitioner also absconded in the year 1974 and his bail was cancelled. This is the second time that he has misused the privilege of bail. The petitioner is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000. He should furnish a bank guarantee of this amount."
2. Section 8 of the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1959, provides for bail "The Tribunal may, when the person complained against appears before it, take from him a bond, with or without sureties, . . . . require him to furnish a bond, with one or more sureties . . . . . until the inquiry is concluded" and it does not envisage, the furnishing of a security h: in cash or by a bank guarantee.
There is a reported case on the same point interpreting sections 498, and 499, Cr. P. C. in Abdul Ahad v. State (1970 P Cr. L J 1256) where it was held that section 499 contemplates the execution of a bond and not cash deposit and therefore, the order to that effect was set aside. There is another reported case in Lakhi Narayan Kundu v. The Crown (P L D 1955 Dacca 84) initiating the same proposition.
3. In this view of the matter the order dated 11-1-1979 is in excess of jurisdiction of the learned Tribunal and is accordingly set aside. The revision petition is accepted.
The petitioner will be released on bail. Subject to his furnishing 3 sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only) each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner (City/District) Tribunal, Lahore.
Revision allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer