Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others VS Respondent: THE STATE and another
Court Name: Peshawar High Court Judge(s): Abdur Rauf Khan Lughmani Title: MUHAMMAD NAWAZ and 3 others vs THE STATE and another Case No.: Criminal Revision No,3 of 1999 Date of Judgment:1999-03-15 Reported As: 1999 YLR 1713 Result: Revision petition accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' Abdur Rahim and Fazal Karim were granted pre-arrest bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Maya/Judicial Magistrate in cage .F..R. No,61, dated 22-1-1998 under section 124 read with section 34, P.P.C., at Police Station Lakki Marwat, by the learned Special Judge, Lakki Marwat on 9-3-1998 and the case was posted to 11-4-1998. The petitioners, Muhammad Nawaz Nasrullah Mirza Ali and Muhammad Akram Khan stood sureties for the two accused named above. On 11-4-1998 counsel for the accused was present, but due to absence of the two accused, pre-arrest bail application was dismissed in default for want of prosecution and ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the accused was recalled and the case was filed. However, on 19-3-1998 Hamidullah Khan, complainant submitted an application requesting the Court for proceeding against the sureties under section 514, Cr.P.C. 2. Petitioners were summoned and ultimately vide order, dated- 25-6-1998, the learned Sessions Judge ordered the recovery of 1/5th of the amount of Rs,50,000 i,e, Rs,10,000 from the sureties or in default, each one of them to suffer 6 months' S.I. Feeling aggrieved, the sureties have filed the present petition. 3. On going through the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Assistant Advocate, General, I find that the procedure laid down in section 514, Cr.P.C., has been violated. Three stages are contemplated for proceeding under section 514, Cr.P.C. Firstly, the declaration of forfeiture, secondly, the order of payment or in the alternative to show cause and thirdly/lastly, the step for the recovery of the amount. There must be first order of forfeiture upon the proof to the satisfaction of the Court when forfeiture did take place. In the instant case I find that simple notice was issued to the petitioners for 13-5-1998 on which date the petitioners
---
## Page 2
Nasrullah and Mirza Ali were present and they were given notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Whereas the Court was first to order the forfeiture of the bond and then to issue show-cause notice or direction for the payment. Again there is nothing on the record that the Court while recalling the interim pre-arrest bail, forfeited the bail bond. The procedure adopted by the Court and the show- cause notice are violative of the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. The learned Assistant Advocate- General conceded that the proceedings culminated in the impugned order are violative of section 514, Cr.P.C. I, therefore, accept the petition and set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, dated 25-6-1998.