Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL RAZAQ VS Respondent: THE STATEMuhammad Zahid Abbasi,Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State.
1991 P Cr
1991 P Cr. L J 1885
[Lahore]
Before Muhammad Amir Malik, J
ABDUL RAZAQ---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Revision No.9 of 1991, heard on 19th May, 1991
Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898)---
----S. 514---Forfeiture of surety bond---Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, absented from Court and petitioner could not produce him before Court---Surety bond of petitioner was rightly forfeited---Petitioner, however, contended that forfeiture of the whole of the bond was a severe order and that keeping the balance between severity and the ends of justice, amount could be reduced-- Prosecution having not seriously controverted contention of petitioner amount of forfeiture of bond was reduced accordingly.
Muhammad Zahid Abbasi for Petitioner.
Hafiz Ghulam Bari for the State.
Date of hearing: 19th May, 1991.
JUDGMENT
Abdul Razaq petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs.10,000 for Mst. Kaneez Bibi an accused in case F.I.R. No.55/88 Police Station Jhang Bazar Faisalabad, registered under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. She absented herself from the Court and the petitioner also could not produce her nor did 'he himself attend the Court when notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was issued to him. So, the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeited the bond in full. He has come up in revision against the same.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State have been heard. Admittedly the petitioner was a surety, the accused for whom he was surety absented from the Court and so the bond was correctly forfeited. Anyhow learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that forfeiture of the whole of the bond was a severer order and that keeping the balance between severity and the ends of justice, the amount may be reduced. Learned counsel for the State could not seriously controvert this aspect.
3. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The forfeiture of the bond is reduced to Rs.4,000. This shall be recovered in accordance with law.
H.B.T./A-1329/L Revision accepted.