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. 78 of 1984, heard on 26th May, 1984.
‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Forfeiture of surety amount‑‑Accused petitioner standing surety for main accused who was released on bail but failing to appear before Court‑‑Contention of petitioner, that accused was confined in jail on various dates of hearing and therefore it was beyond his control to produce him, supported by report of Superintendent Jail‑‑Order forfeiting bond passed ex parte and proper opportunity not afforded to petitioner to explain absence of accused‑‑Order of forfeiture set aside and case remanded to trial Court to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Muhammad Ashraf for Appellant
Irshad Ahmad for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th May, 1984.
A case under the Arms Ordinance was registered against one Manzoor son of Muhammad Inayat. The said accused was allowed bail by the trial Court and the petitioner stood surety for his appearance. The accused Manzoor failed to appear in the Court and accordingly the petitioner, his surety, was proceeded against and the bond furnished by the petitioner was forfeited by the learned trial Court vide its order dated 25‑7‑1983. Vide the said order, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 2,000.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner took an appeal before the District Magistrate Toba Tek Singh, the same was also dismissed.
3. The petitioner has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court and it has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant date the accused Manzoor had been arrested and was confined in judicial lock up and that is why the petitioner could not take any steps to produce the accused in the trial Court. To ascertain the truth of this fact, a report was called for from the Superintendent District Jail Jhang and the Superintendent District Jail, Muzaffargarh. The reports clearly show that on various dates of hearing the accused was confined in District Jail, Jhang.
4. It has been further contended before me that the order forfeiting the bond was passed ex parte and proper opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner to explain the absence of the accused.
5. The circumstances of the case merits interference by this Court, because it was beyond the control of the petitioner to produce the accused before the trial Court. The order dated 25‑7‑1983 forfeiting the bond is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
M.Y.H. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer