Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ZULFIQAR ALI VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Ijaz Ahmad ChaudhryZULFIQAR ALI,THE STATE
2003 Y L R 2448
2003 Y L R 2448
[Lahore]
Before Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J
ZULFIQAR ALI ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 421 of 2002, decided on 19th February, 2003.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.514---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/109/148/149---Forfeiture of surety bond---Accused who had been appearing on each and every date of hearing during trial, could not appear on relevant date due to some misunderstanding and though accused later on was allowed bail before arrest, but surety bond submitted by surety of accused was forfeited and surety was directed to pay amount of surety bond---No notice was issued to surety of accused before forfeiture of his surety bond which was forfeited in a slipshod manner---Proper procedure had not been followed by Court before passing order forfeiting surety bond and surety was condemned unheard---Order passed by Trial Court against surety, was set aside----Trial Court could initiate the proceedings against the surety by following the proper procedure as required under S.514, Cr.P.C.
Mian Fazal Rauf Joyia, Advocate.
ORDER
Through this petition under sections 435/ 439; Cr.P.C. petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-10-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the surety bond was confiscated and the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of the surety bond.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Allah Ditta one of the accused in case F.I.R. No.331 of 2001 registered under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Qabula Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif was granted bail and the petitioner stood surety while submitting bail bonds amounting to Rs.1,00,000. during the trial he was absented on 18-10-2002 wherefor his bail was cancelled and after confiscating of surety bonds, notice was issued to the petitioner for deposit of the total surety amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that said Allah Ditta had been appearing on each and every date of hearing during the trial, but due to the misunderstanding could not appear on 18-10-2002 and subsequently he has also been allowed bail before arrest., According to the learned counsel the impugned order having not been passed after following the proper procedure is liable to be set aside.
4. Nobody is present to oppose this petition on behalf of the State.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, it is clear that no notice was issued to the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. before the forfeiture of the surety bond and surety bond has been forfeited in a slipshod manner. The proper procedure has not been followed before the passing of the impugned order and the petitioner was condemned unheard. Hence, the order dated 18-10-2002 is set aside by accepting this petition. However, the learned trial Court can initiate the proceedings against the petitioner by following the proper procedure as required under section 514, Cr.P.C.
H.B.T./Z-166/L Petition allowed.