1988 P Cr (PLP)
FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1988 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 P Cr (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 1988 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 P Cr (PLP) (FATEH MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Akbar Tarar for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th May, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 514‑‑Confiscation of surety amount‑‑Accused absenting for only one date‑‑Surety producing him on next date‑‑Surety alive to his responsibility acting promptly on receiving notice, showing his bona fides‑‑Confiscation of Rs.5,000 from surety bond found to be severe and harsh‑‑Token confiscation of Rs.500 considered sufficient to keep people alive of their responsibilities in circumstances. Rana Ahmad Saeed for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Ahmad Saeed for the State. Date of hearing: 16th May, 1988. One Gul Nawaz was granted bail in case F.I. R. No. 38/87 under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 of Police Station Ahmad Nagar, District Gujranwala. Fateh Muhammad and Ghulam Rasul had stood sureties for him. Gul Nawaz absented on 19‑3‑1988. The sureties and the accused were issued notices. The sureties produced Gul Nawaz on the next date of hearing. Learned trial Court issued notice to the sureties to show cause why their bail bonds be not confiscated, on Gul Nawaz having absented.
2. On appearance of the sureties, Ghulam Rasul was absolved of the responsibility but action was taken against Fateh Muhammad, in that a sum of Rs.5,000 was directed to be confiscated from his surety bond. One of the reasons which weighed with learned trial Court was that he was father of the accused.
3. Feeling aggrieved, Fateh Muhammad has challenged the order of the trial Court passed on 19‑3‑1988.
4. In this case the absence of the accused had occurred only for one gate. The accused was produced by the surety on the next date of hearing, which shows that the surety was alive to his responsibilities and he acted promptly on receiving notice. Although strictly speaking in accordance with law he could be held liable for the accused having absented on one date yet the prompt response and attention paid by the petitioner to procure the attendance of the accused go a long way to prove his bona fides. As such the confiscation of amount of Rs.5,000 from his surety bond seems to be really severe and harsh. In such a situation a token confiscation could have been sufficient, so that the people remain alive to their responsibilities. In the circumstances, the amount of sum of Rs.5,000 confiscated from the surety bond of the petitioner is reduced to a sum of Rs.500 (Rupees five hundred only). The petition is disposed of with the above reduction in the confiscated amount. S.A./F‑84/L Confiscated amount reduced.