2001 PLP 981 (MLD)
LOUNG‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2001 PLP 981 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Deedar Hussain Shah, J |
| Parties | LOUNG‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 981 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 981 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Deedar Hussain Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 981 (MLD) (LOUNG‑‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.B. Bhutto for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd October, 1997.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 514‑‑‑Forfeiture of surety bond‑‑‑Applicant stood surety of accused but his surety bond was forfeited due to absence of accused‑‑‑Applicant had stood surety of accused and had furnished bail bond only on humanitarian grounds without receiving any monetary gain‑‑‑Accused could not attend Court as he was arrested by Police in another case‑‑‑Absence of accused from Trial Court, in circumstances, was neither wilful nor deliberate‑‑‑Court, in circumstances, reduced amount of fine from Rs.30,000 to Rs.12,000 to be deposited by surety within specified period. Munib Ahmed Khan, A.A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
K.B. Bhutto for Petitioner. Munib Ahmed Khan, A.A.‑G. for the State. Applicant Loung furnished surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 before the trial Court in Sessions Case No.126 of 1991 viz State v. Jan Muhammad and others in the sum of Rs.50,000 in favour of accused Muhammad Ramzan. Muhammad Ramzan accused after release was facing trial before the trial Court. Subsequently he was arrested by the police and was detained at Thatta sub‑jail. Due to absence of accused notice to surety (applicant Loung) was issued who on inquiry found that accused was confined in Thatta sub‑jail. Applicant intimated the trial Court. After issuing show‑cause notice and hearing the applicant, learned First Additional Sessions Judge Thatta was pleased to forfeit the bond and imposed a fine of Rs.30,
000. Hence this revision. Mr. K. B.. Bhutto, learned counsel contends that applicant No. 1, on humanitarian ground furnished the bail bond on behalf of the accused and he has not received any monetary‑gain. Accused was arrested by police and was not able to attend the Court. The absence of accused from the Court was not wilful or deliberate, fine imposed by the trial Court is very harsh. Mr. Munib Ahmed Khan, A.A.G. does not controvert the facts stated by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the fine of Rs.30,000 imposed by the trial Court appears to be harsh and raises no objection if the same is reduced to Rs.12,
000. I have gone through the material placed with the case. Admittedly applicant furnished surety bond in favour of the accused purely on humanitarian grounds but did not receive any monetary gain from the accused. This fact is also reflected in the order of First Additional Sessions Judge Thatta. The absence of the accused from the trial Court under the circumstances was not wilful or deliberate. Time and again it has been held that penalty of imposing the surety amount is neither to be so excessive nor to be so lenient, otherwise purpose of furnishing bail bond on behalf or accused person would frustrate. Applicant is not even related to the accused and he has taken diligent efforts in procuring his attendance before the Court. Since accused was in custody and was detained at sub‑jail Thatta therefore, accused could not attend the Court. The learned A.A.G. very rightly raises no objection if fine of Rs.30,000 is reduced to Rs.12,000 only. Accordingly I allow application and reduce the fine from Rs.30,000 to Rs.12,000 which is to be deposited by the applicant before the trial Court within 30 days. H.B.T./L-7/K Order accordingly