Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed NAZIR ALI SHAH VS Respondent: THE STATE
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Z.C. Valiani Title: Syed NAZIR ALI SHAH vs THE STATE Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1980 Date of Judgment:1982-04-18 Reported As: 1983 P Cr. L J 1472 Result: Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted, that he is pressing the above revision application in respect of the quantum of the forfeited surety bond, in view of the case reported in PLD 1963 SC 47. The learned Advocate on the basis of the earlier referred decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court submitted, that as there is nothing on record to Show that the applicant stood surety for monetary considerations, but in fact he being neighbour out of benevolent considerations, be stood surety for the five accused persons in question and as such the amount of surety bond forfeited ought to be reasonable, keeping in view the observations of the Hon---ble Supreme Court, in the earlier mentioned case. 2. The learned Advocate appearing for the State submitted, that it is true, there is nothing on record to show, that the applicant stood surety for monetary consideration and as such the forfeiture of the entire surety bond is not called for and therefore he submitted that amount of forfeiture may be reduced. 3. Keeping in view the above submissions, made by the learned counsel and also the fact that the accused persons did not abscond during the entire trial and regularly appeared before the learned trial Court and in the absence of anything on record to show, that applicant stood surety for any monetary consideration, I would reduce the forfeiture amount of each bond from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 3,000 only, but would otherwise maintain the impugned order. 4. The above revision application stands disposed of in terms of the above order.