Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN versus THE STATE

Criminal Code of Conduct (CR PC) Sections 514 and 439 of the Criminal Code (XLV of 1860), Section 467/468/409/109/420 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), Section 5 (2) of the Bail Bond Applicant's bail (bail) was served on the notice to explain why he should not seize the amount of bail (Rs. 50,000) as the accused for whom he was guaranteed was on the relevant date. Had failed to appear in court without a reasonable excuse. There was evidence of the prosecution, in response to the petition (bail), which, in response to the notice, confessed to the accused being a guarantor and said that despite his best efforts he would not be able to identify the accused and Bond. Seek to have a gentle attitude while seizing. After which the trial court confiscated the amount of bail up to Rs 20,000 so that the amount was confiscated rather than challenged, the applicant deposited the amount in the treasury after the petitioner appeared in the trial court almost two years later. During the entire proceedings, the petitioner petitioned the trial court for a refund of the seized money because the accused appeared in court but was denied dismissing the request and challenging the review. It was said that the trial court rightly imposed a fine of Rs 20,000. In the circumstances of the case and that there was no need for an inquiry because the applicant had taken a contradictory and contradictory position in his review petition, otherwise the applicant would have been allowed by the trial court four years later without providing a reasonable explanation. Orders placed were challenged. A revision request was denied in due course law websites from Tharparkar lawyer