Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1988 M L D 319

1988 M L D 319 [Lahore]

Before Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J

MUMTAZ alias TAZOO and another‑‑Petitioners

versus

THE STATE‑‑Respondent Criminal Revision No. 104 of 1988, heard on 16th March, 1988.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Bail bond, forfeiture of‑‑Petitioner failed to appear in Court, resulting in cancellation of his bail and confiscation of surety amount to the tune of Rs. 15,000‑‑Non‑appearance of petitioner however, occasioned due to wrong impression that he was no longer required to appear in Court since parties effected compromise‑‑Confiscated surety amount of Rs. 15,000 reduced to Rs. 2,300 in circumstances.

Malik Allah Yar for Petitioners.

Ehsan Ahmad for the State.

Date of hearing: 16th March, 1988.

JUDGMENT

Mumtaz alias Tazoo was admitted to interim pre‑arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, on furnishing bail bond and surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000, in a case registered against him under Section 365/148/149, P.P.C. He did not appear on the date fixed for hearing of the bail petition. His bail was cancelled, notice was issued to him as well as to the surety, Nazir Ahmad. After having taken the necessary proceedings, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the confiscation of the bond and the surety bond. A sum of Rs. 10,000 was directed to be confiscated from the bond filed by Mumtaz alias Tazoo while a sum of Rs. 5,000 was directed to be confiscated from the surety bond filed by Nazir Ahmad. Both of them have approached this Court by way of revision petition.

2. At the time of admission, learned counsel after having argued the petition on at some length on merits, had not pressed the petition on merits and had prayed only for reduction in the confiscated amount. The revision petition was admitted to consider that prayer only.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that after admission of Mumtaz petitioner to interim pre‑arrest bail, a compromise was effected between the parties and his non‑appearance was on account of the fact that he thought that since the compromise had been effected and police did not want to arrest, so he was not required to appear for bail. The learned counsel pointed out that the case was also cancelled as a result of that compromise. It is in the light of these facts that the learned counsel is praying for substantial reduction in the confiscated amount.

4. Taking into account, all what has been noted above, I feel a case stands made out for reduction in the confiscated amount. The sum of Rs. 10,000 directed to be confiscated from the bond filed, by Mumtaz petitioner is reduced to Rs. 1,500 and the sum of Rs. 5,000 directed to be confiscated from the surety bond filed by Nazir Ahmad is reduced to Rs. 800. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

S.G.D./M‑648/L

Order accordingly.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant