1999 P Cr (PLP)
MUMTAZ ARMED — Petitioner Versus THE ESTATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUMTAZ ARMED — Petitioner Versus THE ESTATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 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: 1999 P Cr (PLP) (MUMTAZ ARMED — Petitioner Versus THE ESTATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tahir Jalil Usmani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 499 & 514
Petitioner was the attesting witness of bail bond
Demand of bail amount from attesting witness
Where accused .had jumped bail, it was obligatory on sureties to have either produced the accused or face the consequences
Person attesting bail bond was not responsible for the appearance of accused, and, as such, no proceedings under S.514, Cr.P.C. could be initiated against him.
Judgment & Decree
S. Amjad Shah for the State. Date of hearing: 7th December, 1998. This criminal revision has been preferred by Mumtaz Ahmad son of Allah Bakhsh, resident of Mohallah Loharan, Haripur, assailing the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Haripur, dated 29-6-1998. 2. Facts of the case briefly are that an accused namely Mahmood son of Gul Meran an Afghan refugee involved in case F.I.R. No.29, dated 28-1-1997 of Police Station Kotnajibullah for an offence under section 302, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance was released on bail by the competent Court for which two persons namely Momin Shah and Nazar Elahi stood sureties. The present petitioner namely Mumtaz Ahmad was the attesting witness of the bail bond. 3. During the trial of the case Mahmood accused absconded and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was issued to the sureties whereafter bail bond was confiscated. 4. Nazar Elahi one of the sureties could not deposit the penalty of the forfeiture. The trial Court vide the impugned order directed Mumtaz Ahmad the petitioner to make payment of the amount of penalty in case Nazar Elahi fails to do so. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the two sureties namely Momin Shah and Nazar Elahi stood sureties for the principal accused and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. were initiated against them. It was, therefore, obligatory on them to have either produced the accused in Court or in the alternative face the consequences of the forfeiture of their bail bond. 6. In the case in hand the petitioner only verified the bail bond. He is, therefore, not responsible for the appearance of the accused as contemplated under section 499, Cr.P.C. as such no proceeding under section 514, Cr.P.C., could be initiated against him. (Reliance is placed on PLD 1972 Azad J&K1 p.45). 7. In the circumstances it would, therefore, be illegal to over burden the petitioner with the penalty. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the) impugned order to the extent of penalizing the petitioner is set aside. Q.M.H./M.A.K./240/P Revision accepted.