MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE KHAN versus THE STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE-GENERAL AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD
Section 514 confiscation proceedings were charged with the same as for which the appellant was on bail, regularly appearing in the trial court, but even after 9 years, the trial was not concluded. It was learned that the accused had gone on bail. For the medical treatment, the accused may be acquitted due to bail, the petition for withdrawal of bail bond was granted, the trial court did not grant any order on this request and kept it on record only when the due date for the accused. Did not give up. Hearing, trial court confiscates bail bond Property bailor (appellant) moved petition for withdrawal of bail bond well before the date of hearing. No order was approved on the request and the trial court immediately granted the order to seize the bond of bail and directed the bail. In order to submit the confiscated amount, the confiscated order should record the reasons for confiscating the collateral, and after that confiscation, the guarantor M I is presented with a show cause notice that it will be able to identify the forfeited money from section 514. Why could not, CRPC stated that on the satisfaction of the court it is necessary to prove that the bond was confiscated, and it was only after such evidence that the guarantee could be shown as to why the fines were not. The evidence that should be imposed should be based on the fact that the bond has been forfeited, in the absence of such evidence not to issue notice No responsibility will be received. The trial court quickly issued an injunction and proceeded without the relevant law provisions and section
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2014
