Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No. 60 of 1986, decided on 12th October, 1986.
‑‑Ss. 435, 439, 497 & 514‑‑Revision‑‑Revision against order of forfeiture of bail bond on account of absence of accused‑‑No notice as yet issued to accused by Trial Court under S. 514, Cr.P.C. calling upon him to pay penalty out of bond‑‑When such notice would be issued then representation of accused was likely to be considered by Trial Court‑ Revision application dismissed as premature.
‑‑‑Ss. 435, 439 & 497‑‑Revision‑‑Forfeiture of bond on account of absence of accused‑‑Accused failing to submit required medical certificate‑‑When accused would appear before Trial Court and produce medical certificate then same could be given due consideration by Trial Court‑‑Revision application being without merit was dismissed.
Nemo for Petitioners.
Sanaullah Khan for the State.
Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986.
Applicants Zahir Shah and Iqbal Shah and their counsel called absent. Mr. Sanaullah Khan has appeared for the State.
This application under section 435/439 of Cr.P.C. has been directed against the order, dated 25‑6‑1986 whereby the bail bond furnished by the applicants has been forfeited on account of the absence of the accused and another order, dated 1‑7‑1986 where again the application for exemption made by the accused had been rejected.
I do not understand why the applicant Zahir Shah has felt aggrieved as there is no notice apparently issued to him by the trial Court under section 514 calling upon him to pay the penalty out of the bond. When such notice is issued to him then he can make his representation in respect of the same and I am quite sure that the trial Court would then consider the representation of the applicant Zahir Shah in that regard and pass the appropriate order in respect of the payment of the penalty or otherwise. Therefore, the application of Zahir Shah is found to be premature and is dismissed as such.
As regards applicant Iqbal Shah, I would only say that the learned trial Court was justified in making the two orders on 25‑6‑1986 and 1‑7‑1986 because the accused was absent and had failed both times to produce the medical certificate and, therefore, non‑ bailable warrants had been issued against him. I am quite sure that if this applicant Iqbal Shah appears before the trial Court and produces the required medical certificate then the same shall be given due consideration by the trial Court and an appropriate order shall be passed thereon. Consequently, this application is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.Y.H./Z‑5/K Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer