1985 P Cr (PLP)
ALLAH RAKHA SULEHRIA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH RAKHA SULEHRIA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (ALLAH RAKHA SULEHRIA‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A.W. Butt for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 30th January, 198S.
Headnotes / Summary
Canal procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑S.514‑‑Bail bond, forfeiture of‑‑Surety not binding himself to produce accused in Court other than trial Court‑‑Order of Court to produce accused in application for cancellation of bail or pay bond money, held, not proper. Ashraf Hijazi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
A.W. Butt for Petitioner. Ashraf Hijazi for the State. Date of hearing: 30th January, 198S. The facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly are that a case under sections 307/326/324/148/149, P.P.C. was registered at P.S. Phillaura, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot against Tariq Mahmood. He was arrested and released on the bail bond furnished by Allah Rakha Sulehria petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant filed Application for the cancellation of bail granted to the accused by the Magistrate. Since, despite notice, the accused did not appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide his impugned order, dated 7‑1‑1985 directed Allah Rakha petitioner to produce the accused on 28‑1‑1985 and appear before him alongwith the bond money,, hence this revision. The order, reads as under:‑
2. The learned counsel submits that in view of the terms and conditions of the bail bond; the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have directed, the petitioner to produce the accused or to pay the bond money. The learned counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that by executing the bail bond, the petitioner had not bound himself to produce the accused before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in miscellaneous matters. The terms of the bond may be reproduced advantageously:‑ From bare reading of the bond executed by the petitioner, it is very much obvious that he was not bound to produce the accused in Court other than the trial Court and as such, the learned Additional Sessions. Judge could not have directed him to produce the accused or pay the bond money. For what has been stated above, the impugned order to the extent of the petitioner is set aside. M. A. K. Petition accepted.