Find a Lawyer

Criminal 'Revision No. 954 of 1971, decided of 13th October, 1980

--- S. 514-Bail bonds, forfeiture of-Petitioners appearing in Court but slipping away from Court premises during course of dictation of order on date of confirmation of their pre-arrest bail---Petitioners having discharged conditions of their bonds by appearing in Court, Court, held, could not order forfeiture of their bail bonds nor order recovery of amount of bonds in circumstances.

Sadiq Ali v. State P L D 1966 S C 589 ; Fakhar-i-Alam v. State 1968 S C M R 64 and Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Kasuri v. State 1974 P Cr. L J 482 rel.

Mushtaq Raj for Petitioner.

Asif Sajjad for the State.

Date of hearing : 13th October, 1980.

The petitioners applied for bail before arrest. They were granted interim bail on 3rdoSeptember, 1971 until 7th September, 1971 and during the course of dictation of the order on the date of the confirmation when the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffargarh, reached at the concluding part, the petitioners slipped away from the Court premises whereupon the learned Sessions Judge directed the forfeiture of their bail bonds and also directed the Magistrate concerned to recover the amount of the bonds. This direction has been impugned in this revision petition which was admitted to hearing in the year 1971.

2. I agree with the learned counsel of the petitioners that the peti tioners had discharged the conditions of their bonds by appearing in Court on 7th September, 1971 and that the consistent view taken by the superior judiciary is that in a case of bail before arrest after the grant of interim bail, unless specifically directed by the Court, the petitioners are not bound to appear on the date of hearing for confirmation of the bail, but in spite of that the petitioners did appear and, therefore, the bonds are not liable to forfeiture.

Had the learned Sessions Judge directed the prosecution of the petitioners for an offence for escaping from the lawful custody or for th offence of Contempt of Court or for the offence of disobedience of a lawful order, i. e. leaving the Court room despite a specific order, the matte could be examined from other aspect, but as far as the forfeiture of the bail bonds despite their appearance in the Court is concerned the impugned order is not maintainable.

In this view of the matter I allow this revision and set aside the impugned order and in this regard 1 would refer to Sadiq Ali v. State (P L D 1966 S C 589), Fakhar-i-Alam v. State (1968 S C M R 64), Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Kasuri v. The State.

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.