Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BASHIR AHMED VS Respondent: THE STATE
2001 M L D 695
2001 M L D 695
[Lahore]
Before Bashir A. Mujahid, J
BASHIR AHMED ‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No.220 of 1999, heard on 7th June, 1999.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.514‑‑‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.7‑‑‑Forfeiture of bail bond‑‑‑Surety having failed to produce the accused in the Court, bail bond of surety was forfeited‑‑‑Surety had submitted that the accused, after having been enlarged on bail, had gone abroad without informing him and he undertook that as and when the accused would come to the country, he would try to produce him before the Court‑‑ Surety had further submitted that he was a poor and old man and had stood surety for the accused out of benevolence and that penalty imposed on him was too heavy and that in several cases Court had reduced same to the tune of one‑fourth of the total amount‑‑‑Court taking into consideration submissions of the surety, reduced amount accordingly.
Haji Miran Malik for Petitioner. A.H. Masood for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th June, 1999.
JUDGMENT
One Ghulam Abbas an accused of F.I.R. No.202 of 1996, registered at Police Station City Mandi Bahauddin, under section 7 of Offence of Qazi (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979) was bailed out from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and the petitioner Bahsir Ahmad stood surety for him in the sum of Rs.30,000. The accused, thereafter, did not appear before the Court and was declared proclaimed offender and notices were issued to the petitioner, who also failed to produce the accused and ultimately vide order, dated 20‑4‑1999 the learned trial Court adopting the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. forfeited the bail bond and after lessening Rs.5,000 from the total amount of bond directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000 till 30‑4‑1999. The said order has been called in question through the instant Criminal Revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per knowledge of the petitioner, the accused after having been enlarged on bail, has gone to Saudi Arabia without informing the petitioner whose production before the Court is beyond the control of the petitioner. He, however, undertakes that as and when the accused comes to the country, he will try to produce him before the Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a poor man and an old one having no personal interest to escape the accused from the Court and had stood surety for him out of benevolence and that the penalty imposed is. too heavy and in several cases this Court has reduced the same to the tune of 1/4th of the total amount. The last submission is also concurred by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of State.
In these circumstances, considering the arguments of the learned counsel, I feel that if the penalty is reduced to Rs.10,000 that will be enough to meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. Criminal Revision stands disposed of.
H.B.T./B‑28/L Order accordingly.