Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 1985, heard on 30th April, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Surety bound confiscated by trial Court‑‑Counsel for surety not pressing points which were raised at time of admission of appeal but praying reduction of amount of surety bond confiscated, on ground that same Court confiscated a sum of R9. 1,000 each from other two sureties for other accused in same case‑‑State opposing same prayer on ground that case of surety was distinguishable from other two sureties on ground that other two sureties did not avoid appearance in proceedings under S. 514 like present surety‑‑Confiscated amount reduced from 15,000 to 3,000 in circumstances.

Malik Amjad Pervaiz for Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Appellant.

Ch. Zafar Yaseen, for A.‑G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 30th April, 1985.

The appellant had stood surety for Shaukat Hayat, who was facing trial under section 364, P.P.C., in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, when the latter was granted bail. On the accused having absented, proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. were initiated against him and whole amount of the surety bond was confiscated vide order, dated 10‑11‑1984 of the Additional Sessions Judge.

2. Although at the time of admission of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant had raised various points i.e. that the appellant was not given sufficient notice before attachment, that summons/ warrants etc. were not issued on the address given in the surety bond and that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not pass the order of detention of the appellant in civil prison, but today, learned counsel straightaway submitted, that he has instructions to state that the appellant will be satisfied if the amount of surety bond confiscated be reduced to a reasonable and just extent. In this regard learned counsel submitted that other persons, who had stood surety for the other accused in the same case, were also proceeded against under section 514, Cr.P.C. and that the same Court had confiscated a sum of Rs. 1,000 only, in case of each of the other two sureties, and that consistency demands that same amount be confiscated from the surety bond of the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submitted that the case of the appellant is distinguishable from the other two sureties, inasmuch as the appellant had avoided appearance in the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. while the other sureties had appeared on the very first day and faced the proceedings. Lean aged counsel submitted that the conduct of the appellant in avoiding to face the proceedings warrants that same leniency should not be shown to him.

4. Keeping in view all the facts of the case, I am of the view that if a sum of Rs. 3,000 is confiscated from the surety bond of the appellant, it will meet the requirement of justice in this case. Order accordingly.

If the appellant deposits the amount within fifteen days, the attached property will be released. Till then neither the appellant shall be arrested, nor the attached property shall be sold.

M. A. K

Order accordingly

Find a Lawyer Near You

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