2004 P Cr (PLP)
UMAR ALI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent.
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UMAR ALI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (UMAR ALI and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Yousaf Haroon for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 514 & 439
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/429/148/ 149--Forfeiture of surety bond--Accused for whom petitioners stood sureties having failed to appear before Trial Court, show-cause notice was served on petitioners/sureties
Said sureties in their reply to show cause notice having expressed their inability to produce accused before the Court, Trial Court keeping in view their financial status, of sureties reduced the surety amount from Rupees three lacs to Rupees one lac and sureties were directed to pay the said surety amount upto the specified date
Petitioners/sureties were under. legal obligation to discharge their liability under bond furnished by them-- After undertaking liability to pay surety amount, it would not lie in their mouths to say that on account of their financial condition they could not .pay amount of surety bond executed by them and that they stood surety of accused out of benevolence without any monetary gain-- No legal embargo existed against forfeiting entire bail bond
Where an accused had jumped bail entire surety amount could be confiscated-- Surety was liable to produce accused in Court in view of his undertaking
Trial Court having already taken a lenient view by reducing amount of surety bond, no good ground/reason existed to further reduce amount of surety bond
Impugned order of Trial Court being correct, proper and legal, same did not call for interference of High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Revision Petition No.40 of 2003, decided on 12th March, 2004.
Ss. 514 & 439
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/429/148/ 149--Forfeiture of surety bond--Accused for whom petitioners stood sureties having failed to appear before Trial Court, show-cause notice was served on petitioners/sureties
Said sureties in their reply to show cause notice having expressed their inability to produce accused before the Court, Trial Court keeping in view their financial status, of sureties reduced the surety amount from Rupees three lacs to Rupees one lac and sureties were directed to pay the said surety amount upto the specified date
Petitioners/sureties were under. legal obligation to discharge their liability under bond furnished by them-- After undertaking liability to pay surety amount, it would not lie in their mouths to say that on account of their financial condition they could not .pay amount of surety bond executed by them and that they stood surety of accused out of benevolence without any monetary gain-- No legal embargo existed against forfeiting entire bail bond
Where an accused had jumped bail entire surety amount could be confiscated-- Surety was liable to produce accused in Court in view of his undertaking
Trial Court having already taken a lenient view by reducing amount of surety bond, no good ground/reason existed to further reduce amount of surety bond
Impugned order of Trial Court being correct, proper and legal, same did not call for interference of High Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Zeshan Kazmi v.. The State PLD 1997 SC 267 and Muhammad Aslam and another v. The State 2004 SCMR 211ref. Yousaf Haroon for Petitioners. Malik Ehsanul Haq for the State. Date of-hearing; 12th March, 2004.