1991 P Cr (PLP)
Syed MUNAWAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed MUNAWAR HUSSAIN — 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) (Syed MUNAWAR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Petitioner stood surety for accused person who absented himself from Court
Bail bond was forfeited and penalty imposed
Petitioner failed to appear before Court and was arrested and detained for about two weeks in jail
Accused was also arrested later
No exception could be taken to the forfeiture of bail bond and imposition of penalty on petitioner but penalty amount was reduced from Rs.10,000 to Rs.2,000 in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Altaf Hussain was arrested in a criminal case. He was released on bail by the Special Judge, Central, Lahore, subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount. Syed Munawar Hussain, petitioner, stood surety for him and executed surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,
000. The case was fixed for hearing before the Special Judge, Central Lahore, on 19-12-1983. The accused did not appear on that date, so the case was adjourned to 12-1-1984. The accused did not appear and sent medical certificate in support of his illness. On this, the trial Court adjourned the case for 16-1-1984. Since 16-1-1984 was holiday, so the case was adjourned to 19-1-1984. On 19-1-1984, Altaf Hussain accused was again absent, so the bail bond was forfeited and notice was issued to the surety/petitioner for 13-2-1984. The petitioner did not appear, The trial Court ultimately imposed the penalty of Rs.70,000 on the petitioner, which was paid in the Court.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not given sufficient time, to explain non-appearance of Altaf Hussain accused before the Court; that after the forfeiture of bail bond, the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail where he remained for about two weeks and that Altaf Hussain accused was ultimately arrested by the police.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that since the petitioner had given undertaking to the effect that Altaf Hussain accused will appear before the Court concerned on each and every date of hearing, so no exception can be taken to the forfeiture of bail bond and imposition of penalty on the petitioner/surety. However, in view of the circumstances that the petitioner was arrested and sent to jail where he was detained for two weeks and the fact that the accused was ultimately arrested, I feel inclined to reduce the penalty amount from Rs.10,00C to Rs.2,
000. The entire penalty amount has been paid in the Court, the trial Court will refund Rs.8,000 to the petitioner Disposed of accordingly SA./M-2940/L Order accordingly .