Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 434 of 1986, heard on 12th October,1986.

---S. 514--Surety bond, forfeiture of--Petitioners stood surety for accused, allowed interim pre-arrest bail--Accused, however, got delayed in attending Court on date of hearing, due to their bus coming late, resulting in cancellation of their bail and forfeiture of surety bond, furnished by petitioners--Amount of bond ordered to be recovered from each petitioner being excessive, was reduced from Rs.3,000 to Rs.500 in case of each petitioner in circumstances.

Mian Ata-ur-Rehman for Petitioners.

Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 12th October, 1986.

This is a revision petition filed by Abdul Aziz and others, petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, against the order of an Additional Sessions Judge of Sialkot, dated 10-9-1986, forfeiting the surety bonds furnished by petitioners and directing them to pay rupees three thousand (Rs.3,000) each thereon.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Abdul Aziz, Muhammad Nawaz and Muhammad Boota, petitioners, stood surety for Shaukat Ali, Murtaza and Abbas, accused, when they were admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by an Additional Sessions Judge of Sialkot on 26-6-1986, They had to appear in Court on 15-7-1986. However, on the said date the three accused were absent. whereupon their interim pre-arrest bails were recalled and the sureties were given notice to show cause why the amounts stated in their surety bonds be not recovered from them. It appears that the three accused got delayed on 15-7-1986 in attending the Court, due to their bus coming late. They, therefore, applied for pre-arrest bail on 15-7-1986, which petition was decided on 30-7-1986, whereby Murtaza accused was granted pre-arrest bail, whereas the petitioner qua Shaukat and Abbas accused was dismissed. On 20-8-1986, the petitioners appeared in Court and requested for time to file their reply. They took some further time. The case was then argued on 10-9-1986, when the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered all the three petitioners to .pay Rupees three thousand (Rs.3,000) each as penalty on the bail bonds furnished by them. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present revision petition in this Court, which is now before me for disposal.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State and have perused the documents filed by the petitioners in Court. It is obvious that though the three accused were absent on 15-7-1986 they immediately filed a petition for pre-arrest bail on 15-7-1986 which was heard and decided on 30-7-1986. In the said petition it was urged that the accused were late on 15-7-1986 as their bus got late. It appears that the death was not contumacious. In these circumstances the amount on the bond ordered to be recovered from the petitioners appears to be rather excessive. In these circumstances the amount to be recovered from each petitioner is reduced from Rupees three thousand (Rs.3,000) to Rupees-.five hundred (Rs.500).

4. For the foregoing reasons whilst maintaining the order of forfeiture of the bond as against each petitioner, I would reduce the amount of the bond to be recovered from each petitioner for Rupees three thousand (Rs.3,000) to Rupees five hundred (Rs.500) each. This petition, therefore, stands partly accepted in terms of the reduction in the amount of the penalty to be recovered, as stated above.

S. G. D. 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.