Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1635 of 1986, heard on 28^th January, 1987.

--S.561-A--Application for quashing order forfeiting surety bond Petitioner standing surety for accused--Accused known to applicant for several years as neighbour and there was no other consideration for his standing surety to accused--Amount of surety bond to be forfeited decreased to one-third in circumstances.

Dildar v. State P L D 1963 S C 47 ref.

S.Zahir Hussain Chishti for Applicant.

Imam Bux Sheikh for A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 28th January, 1987.

This application has been filed with a prayer that the order dated 28-5-1980 for forfeiture of the surety bond amount furnished by the applicant Nisar Ahmed be quashed. The applicant is also -present in person. I have heard Mr.S.Z.H.Chishti, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr.Imam Bux, learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for applicant has confined his arguments only to the point that the entire amount of bond of Rs.15,000 given by the applicant as surety for accused Sohail Ahmed in Crime No.167/77 should not have been forfeited. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Dildar v. State P L D 1963 S C 47. Mr.Imam Bux, learned counsel for the State, also submits that in the circumstances of the case, a lenient view should have been taken and the full amount of the bond should not have been required to be paid by the surety/ applicant.

3. The applicant states that he resides in Quarter No.32/1 'J' Area in Malir Colony, Karachi, whereas accused Sohail Ahmed, a neighbour, resided with his widowed mother in Quarter No.52/4 in 'G' Area. According to the applicant, the house of accused Sohail Ahmed is hardly 50 yards from the house of the applicant. It is further stated by the applicant that after the accused had been arrested in the criminal case in 1977, his widowed mother had come to the applicant and pleaded that he may stand surety for the accused and the applicant agreed to stand surety on the ground that the accused was his neighbour and he had known the accused for several years prior to the date, when he stood surety for him and for the reason that the mother of accused Sohail Ahmed was a widow and that there was no other consideration for standing surety for the applicant. Taking the aforesaid circumstances into account, I am of the view that the full amount of the bond should not have been required from the applicant and that in the circumstances, his default will be adequately punished by requiring him to pay 1/3rd of the surety bond amount i.e. Rs.5,000. The bond will be forfeited to the extent of Rs.5,000 only. To that extend the impugned order is varied.

4. Criminal Misc. Application No.1635 of 1986 stands disposed of accordingly.

M.Y.H./N-45/K Petition partly allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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