2004 PLP 834(1) (YLR)
Rana MUHAMMAD FAZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 834(1) (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Pervaiz Ahmad and Rustam Ali Malik, JJ |
| Parties | Rana MUHAMMAD FAZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 834(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 834(1) (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Pervaiz Ahmad and Rustam Ali Malik, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 834(1) (YLR) (Rana MUHAMMAD FAZAL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shoaib Zafar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.497 & 499
Release on hail
Surety bonds of wife and son of accused-- Validity
Accused who was granted bail subject to his furnishing bonds with two local and respectable sureties of the same police station where F.I.R. was registered; had furnished surety bonds of his wife and son, but Trial Court did not accept the same
No legal bar existed against furnishing surety bonds by son and wife of the accused. Saif Ullah Khan for the State.
Judgment & Decree
PERVAIZ AHMAD, J.
The petitioner, who had been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 30-10-2003 subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.3 millions with two local and very respectable sureties of the same police Station where the F.I.R. was registered to the satisfaction of tile trial Court. The petitioner has submitted that he furnished surety bonds of his wife and son but the trial Court did not accept the same and disposed of the matter vide order dated 13-11-2003. The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved has filed this criminal revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel have been heard.
3. Prima facie, the petitioner is willing to furnish surety bonds of his wife and son and there is no legal bar as to why surety bonds be rejected only on the ground that it had been furnished by the son and wife of the accused. As such the present criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 13-11-2003 is modified that the petitioner is directed to furnish surety bonds as provided in the same order but to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. Disposed of. H.B.T./M-2385/L Revision allowed.