1992 PLP 314 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 314 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 314 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 314 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 314 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Petitioners.
- The case was called. Neither the petitioners nor their counsel has put in appearance. However, it has been taken notice of that the Darned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Najeeb Faisal, Advocate, did appear in a case before the Court earlier in the day.,
Headnotes / Summary
S. 511
Petitioners stood surety for accused persons who were granted pre-arrest bail
Accused absented themselves from Court
Petitioners stood surety out of benevolence and not for monetary gain
Forfeited amount was reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.2,000 each in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 30th April, 1991: The case was called. Neither the petitioners nor their counsel has put in appearance. However, it has been taken notice of that the Darned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Najeeb Faisal, Advocate, did appear in a case before the Court earlier in the day.,
2. The case was taken up for hearing with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners had stood sureties for Rs.10,000 each for three accused, namely, Haji Muhammad Hussain, Abid Hussain and Bagh Ali in case under section 307/34, P.P.C. registered vide F.I.R. No.156/90 at Police Station Basirpur District Okara, on the said accused having been admitted to interim pre-arrest bail by the trial Court and as the said three accused had failed to put in appearance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, their petition for pre-arrest bail was dismissed in default on 25-5-1990. Thereafter, the learned trial Court had ordered for forfeiture under section 514, Cr.P.C. of bail bonds of Rs.10,000 each, submitted by the petitioners herein, vide order dated 17-7-19%.
4. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners herein that as the bail granted to the accused was cancelled for their non-appearance, and as the parties had compromised which had resulted in the case in question being cancelled, therefore, the forfeiture of the bonds submitted by the petitioners was not called for and that the impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable in law.
5. As stated above, neither the petitioners nor their counsel have put in appearance to prosecute the present criminal revision petition, therefore, the contentions raised herein remained unsubstantiated.
6. However, as the petitioners had not stood sureties for the accused for any monetary gain and as they had done so out of benevolence, and as it is now well-established principle of law that in such cases neither to be so severe nor too lenient in ordering the forfeiture of the amount in question, therefore, while dismissing the present criminal revision petition for the reason stated above, however, the forfeited amount is hereby reduced to Rs.2,000 (Rupees two thousand) each, in the case of the petitioners.
7. In accordance with the terms stated above, the present criminal revision petition is hereby dismissed. SA./M-40/L Order accordingly.