P L D 2003 Lahore 802 (PLP)
M. ARSHAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2003 Lahore 802 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J |
| Parties | M. ARSHAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2003 Lahore 802 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2003 Lahore 802 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2003 Lahore 802 (PLP) (M. ARSHAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASUL‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mehr Muhammad Tufail Bhutta for Petitioner
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 514‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 148 & 149‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition ‑‑‑Forefeiture of surety pond‑‑‑Failure to produce the accused by the surety ‑‑‑Forefeiture of surety bond in full by Trial Court‑‑‑Reduction of penalty by Sessions Judge in revision‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Surety was not a relation of the accused and had stood as a surety as a gesture of benevolence‑‑‑Court, in dealing with cases of sureties who might be in default, was supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency, which might be leading to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice‑‑‑While maintaining such balance, the Court was required to hold some sort of balance while determining to what extent a bond was to be forfeited‑‑‑Principles. Admittedly, in the present case surety was not a relation of the accused and had stood as a surety as a gesture of benevolence. Grant of bail is an essential part of the system of administration of justice. It avoids punishing someone in advance and ensures liberty until a case is duly enquired into and adjudged. Whereas, the release of accused persons on bail helps in preventing overcrowding in the already overcrowded prisons. People come forward to stand surety for the accused out of ordinary fellow feelings and invariably without any ambition for gaining of benefit, Therefore in dealing with cases of sureties who play be in default a judicial mind is supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency, which may be leading to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice. Whereas, on the other hand, undue severity may lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. While maintaining this balance, the Courts are required to hold some sort of balance while determining to what extent a bond is to be forfeited. Sardar Khan and others v. The State 1968 PCr. LJ 447; Ghulam Haider v. Karim Bakhsh PLD 1963 SC 47; Muhammad Khan v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2028; Bahadur Khan v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 1283; Muhammad Safeer v. Faqir Khan and 2 others 2000 SCMR 312; Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and 4 others PLD 1998 SC 50 and. Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267 ref. Mrs. Salina Malik, A.A.‑G.
Judgment & Decree
When the matter was taken in revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 15‑2‑2002 reduced the penalty to half i.e. Rs.50,
000. The complainant now has come to this Court through this writ petition assailing the orders passed in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while stating that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have upheld the order of the learned trial Court. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 was not a relation of the accused and had stood as a surety as a gesture of benevolence. Grant of bail is an essential part of the system of administration of justice. It avoids punishing someone in advance and ensures liberty until a case is duly enquired into and adjudged. Whereas, the release of accused persons on bail helps in preventing overcrowding in the already overcrowded prisons. People come forward to stand surety for the accused out of ordinary fellow feelings and invariably without any ambition for gaining of benefit, rather for mere benevolence. Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who may be in default, a judicial mind is supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency, which may be leading to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice. Whereas, on the other hand, undue severity may lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. While maintaining this balance, the Courts are required to hold some sort of balance while determining to what extent a bond is to be forfeited. This Court is guided by the following authorities while deciding this matter:‑‑ (i) Sardar Khan and others v, The State 1968 PCr.LJ 447; (ii) Ghulam Haider v. Karim Bakhsh PLD 1963 SC 47; (iii) Muhammad Khan v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2028; (iv) Bahadur Khan v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 1283; (v) Muhammad Safeer v. Faqir Khan and 2 others 2000 SCMR 312; (vi) Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and 4 others PLD 1998 SC 50; (vii) Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC
267. It may be pointed out in the three authorities of the Supreme Court and lastly mentioned, the sureties were relations of the accused, for whom they stood sureties in cases of heinous crime. This is not a murder case and even otherwise the surety to be furnished was on a higher side i.e. Rs.1,00,
000. Under the circumstances of the case and after hearing both sides, this writ petition has no merits and it is dismissed in limine. M.B.A./M‑2244/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.