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. 255 of 1987, heard on 6th July, 1987.
--Ss .514 & 439--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.458--Bail bond, confiscation of--Full amount of surety bond confiscated--Petitioner standing surety on express undertaking of accused and his relatives- Case for mitigation, held, was made out--Confiscation of bond amount reduced in circumstances.
Dildar etc. v. State P L D 1963 S C 47 ref.
Zafar Iqbal for Petitioner.
Pervaiz Alamgir for A.-G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th July, 1987.
The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 26-1-1987 of District ,Magistrate, Okara, whereby the learned District Magistrate dismissed the appeal filed . by the petitioner against the order, dated 13-11-1986 of Magistrate 1st Class, Depalpur, whereof the learned Magistrate had .directed the confiscation of the total sum of Rs. 10,000 of the bail bond, which the petitioner had filed as a surety for Ismail son of Waryam, who was challaned by Police Station Haveli, under section; 458, P.P. C.
2. The proceedings were initiated, on accused having absented from the Court. Although the petitioner had taken the plea before the District Magistrate as well as in the petition filed by him before this Court, that he had never stood surety for the accused and that somebody else seems to have impersonated him, but the learned counsel appearing for him, had not pressed this point further at the time of admission of the revision petition, considering the fact that the petitioner had been identified at the time of acceptance of bail bond before the Magistrate by an Advocate. In fact, this, is, what had weighed with the learned District Magistrate for not accepting this contention of the petitioner. Learned counsel had only pressed for reduction in the confiscated amount and the petition was admitted to consider that aspect alone. .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner while standing surety had never imagined that the accused would absent himself and that he stood surety on the express undertaking given by the accused and his relatives. Learned counsel has prayed for substantial decrease in the confiscated amount. He has cited Dildar etc. v. State P L D 1963 S C 47. In that case a sum of Rs. 5,000 was confiscated and the learned Judges of the Supreme Court reduced that amount to Rs.1,000.
4. Considering all aspects of the case, I feel that a case for mitigation stands made out. The order of confiscation of amount of Rs. 10,000 from the surety bond, is reduced to Rs. 3,000.
The revision petition stands disposed of.
S.A./A-137/L.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer