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. 384 of 1986, decided on 21st September, 1986.
---S. 514--Surety amount, forfeiture of--Person who stood surety before police in same case and regarding same accused burdened with penalty of Rs.1,000 only, as against Rs.10,000 imposed on petitioner, who stood surety before Court in respect of same case and accused--Forfeited amount of surety reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.2,000 in circumstances.
Dildar and others v. The State P L D 1963 S C 47 ref.
Muhammad Aslam Riaz for Petitioner.
Yasin Qazi for the State.
Date of hearing: 21st September, 1986.
Faiz Mahmood filed Criminal Complaint No. 2112 under section 324/149/147, P.P.C. against Ghulam Rasul etc. The accused were summoned. Tariq was also one of the accused. He was allowed bail by the trial Court on his furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount. Muhammad Yousaf petitioner stood surety on behalf of Tariq accused, who attended some hearings in the said complaint he absented himself on 15-2-1986. Muhammad Yousaf petitioner was given notice to produce Tariq accused. On 4-3-1986 Muhammad Yousaf expressed his inability to produce Tariq accused because he had gone to Saudi Arabia in connection with some job. As a result of this the trial Magistrate on 4-3-1986 ordered forfeiture of the surety bond of Rs.10,000. Muhammad Yousaf challenged this order in appeal before the District Magistrate Toba Tek Singh who dismissed the same vide the impugned order, dated 13-7-1986. Hence this revision.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Initially a case under F.I.R. No.150 of 1985 was registered against Ghulam Rasul etc. accused at the instance of Faiz Mahmood complainant. He felt dissatisfied with the investigation of police and filed a complaint in Court. Tariq accused appeared before the police. He was admitted to bail by the Investigating Officer on his furnishing of bail bond in the sum of Rs.5,0G0 which was furnished by Muhammad Nawaz. The Magistrate vide order dated 6-7-1986 ordered confiscation of Rs.1,000 out of surety bond of Rs.5,000. Muhammad Nawaz surety of Tariq accused before police was directed to pay the said amount. It is contended by the learned counsel that Muhammad Nawaz who had stood surety for Tariq before police was ordered to pay only Rs.1,000 whereas the petitioner has been ordered to pay Rs.10,000 which means that two sureties one before police and another before the Court regarding the same accused in the same case have been treated, discriminately. Secondly, it is contended that in the case reported as Dildar etc. v. The State P L D 1963 S C 47 the Supreme Court reduced the forfeited amount of surety from Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,000 because the surety in spite of best efforts was unable to trace the accused.
In view of the fact that Muhammad Nawaz who had stood surety for Tariq accused in this very case before police was ordered to pay Rs.1,000 out of the total surety amount of Rs.5,000 and keeping in view the judgment in Dildar's case I order that out of the total surety bond of Rs.10,000 Muhammad Yousaf should pay Rs.2,000.
With this modification this revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. Muhammad Yousaf will now pay Rs.1,000 within 30 days of this order.
S.G.D./724/L Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer