Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE VS Respondent: THE STATE
1988 M L D 728
1988 M L D 728
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Munir Khan, J
MUHAMMAD SIDDIOUE‑‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 254/13 of 1988, decided on 10th February, 1988.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S.497‑‑Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.21‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.215‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑Accused released on bail on merits and absenting himself before Trial Court‑‑Non‑bailable warrants issued and accused was sent to jail‑‑Accused in jail for the last about 10 months‑‑Counsel of accused assuring his presence before Trial Court‑‑Bail allowed in circumstances.
Ch. Muhammad Arshad for Petitioner.
Sh. Hamid Mukhtar for the State.
ORDER
This is an application for grant of bail to Muhammad Siddiq petitioner in case under section 215, P.P.C. and section 21 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979, registered at P.S. Kahna, District Lahore, vide F.I.R. No. 166 of 1986, dated 8‑7‑1986.
2. The petitioner was allowed bail on merit by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 5‑10‑1986. After submission of challan, the petitioner did not appear before the Court and as such non‑bailable warrants for his arrest were issued. He was subsequently produced by the surety in the Court and was sent to judicial lock‑up. The petitioner riled three applications for bail which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 14‑9‑1987, 20‑10‑1987 and 23‑12‑1987.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures that the petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing. Learned counsel for the State has opposed this application.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I find that the petitioner was allowed bail on merits on 5‑10 -1986 and it was on account of his absence before the trial Court on the date of hearing that non‑bailable warrants of his arrest were issued and he was sent to jail; that he is in jail since 5‑4‑1987 and that the learned counsel for the petitioner jail, has given assurance that the petitioner will remain present before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing.
For what has been said above, the petitioner is allowed bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner (City), Lahore.
SA./M‑585/L Bail allowed.