YLR 2004

2004 PLP 2281(1) (YLR)

MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No.R-205 of 2003, decided on 25th March, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2004 PLP 2281(1) (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2281(1) (YLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2281(1) (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore 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: 2004 PLP 2281(1) (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR and others — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Ch. Muhammad Abdus Saleem for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 514

Forfeiture of surety bond

Notice to surety-Sureties of accused were issued notices under S.514, Cr.P.C. because accuses could not appear on a single date before Trial Court

Sureties had explained that on said date accused were prevented from going to the Court--Sureties alongwith accused were directed to appear before Court on next date already fixed for hearing

If they would so appear notice would have no bearing.

Judgment & Decree

The grievance of the petitioners has arisen on account of the order dated 12-3-2003 passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioners are sureties of the accused. They have been issued notices under section 514, Cr.P.C., because the accused could not appear on a single date before the learned trial Court. Learned counsel has explained that on that date the accused were prevented from going to that Court and therefore they were not defaulters. They are now asking for setting aside of the impugned order. The petitioners alongwith the accused for whom they stood sureties, should appear before the learned trial Court on next date already fixed and if they so appear, this order shall have no future bearing. The learned trial Court shall then refrain from taking any further action in the matter pursuant to the order impugned which it may be otherwise taking. Disposed of. H.B.T./M-351/L Order accordingly.