1991 P Cr (PLP)
SAIFAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAIFAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
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: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (SAIFAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masood Mirza for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/325
Surety bond, forfeiture of-- Accused who was granted interim pre-arrest bail, failed to appear at time of the hearing of bail application and his bond was forfeited and penalty was imposed both on accused and surety
Accused and his surety admittedly appeared on the same day when application was heard, but after its rejection and had explained cause of his non-appearing at the time when case was called for hearing
No justification thus existed to impose penalty upon the accused.
Judgment & Decree
Masood Mirza for Petitioner. Nemo for the State. Date of hearing: 28th April, 1991. Saifal, petitioner, was arrested in a case under section 307/325, P.P.C. He was allowed interim pre-arrest bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang. Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner No.2, executed surety bond. Saifal failed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of the hearing of bail application on 19-7-1988. So, the bond was forfeited and after notice to the surety the trial Court imposed the penalty of Rs.10,000 upon the accused petitioner No.l and Rs.5,000 on the surety/petitioner No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the same day after the rejection of his bail application and had explained the cause of his non-appearance. No one has appeared for the State.
2. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that Saifal, petitioner- accused did appear on the same day i.e. 19-7-1988 after the rejection of his bail application and had explained the cause of his non-appearance at the time when the case was called for hearing. This being the position there was no justification to impose the penalty upon the petitioner.
3. Pursuant to the above discussion, this revision is accepted and impugned order is set aside. H.B.T./S-948/L Revision accepted