Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL REHMAN VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sh. Abdul RashidZafar Iqbal Chohan
2008 Y L R 641
2008 Y L R 641
[Lahore]
Before Sh. Abdul Rashid, J
ABDUL REHMAN---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No.129 of 2006, decided on 29th May, 2006.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
---S.514---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-H(ii), 342, 379, 109, 148 & 149---Forfeiture of bail bond----Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, having failed to appear, in the court, petitioner/surety had been burdened to pay entire surety amount---Petitioner had pleaded that on account of compromise between complainant and accused for whom petitioner stood surety, case was cancelled and due to said misunderstanding accused did not appear; the Trial Court while passing impugned order did not issue proper notice to the petitioner---Validity---Impugned order had revealed that same had been passed ex parte and point of view of petitioner/surety had not been considered---Impugned order was set aside and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for rehearing case after giving due hearing to the petitioner.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan for the Petitioner.
Najeeb Faisal Chaudhry, Addl. A.-G.
ORDER
SH. ABDUL RASHID, J.---Through this petition the order, dated 30-10-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case F.I.R. No.279/05, dated 27-12-2005 under sections 3421379/337-H(ii)/109/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, City Renala Khurd, District Okara, whereby, the petitioner surety has been burdened to pay entire surety amount of Rs.50,000 has been assailed. The petitioner stood surety for Muhammad Atif accused in the subject case F.I.R. and submitted bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 for appearance of the accused before the learned Court on each and every date. On 7-1-2006 the accused did not appear before the trial Court and consequently the impugned order had been passed.
2. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that due to compromise between the complainant and the accused for whom the petitioner stood surety the case was cancelled and due to said misunderstanding the accused did not appear and the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order did not issue proper notice to the petitioner and did not collect the true facts on the file for proper adjudication of this case.
3. The impugned order reveals that it had been passed ex parte and the petitioner's point of view has not been considered, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for rehearing the case after giving due hearing to the petitioner.
H.B.T./A-132/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.