1984 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1984 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
S.514 read with S.561-A Forfeiture of surety bond
Quality of proceedings No show cause notice serve on surety prior to passing order of forfeiture of bail bond Proceeding quashed and case remanded for deciding question of forfeiture afresh after notice to surety.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 19684, decided on 30th January, 1984.
S.514 read with S.561-A Forfeiture of surety bond
Quality of proceedings No show cause notice serve on surety prior to passing order of forfeiture of bail bond Proceeding quashed and case remanded for deciding question of forfeiture afresh after notice to surety. S. Aijaz Ali Shah for Applicant. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, A.A.-G for the State. This is an application for quashment of the order dated 5th June, 1982 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Shikarpur in Sessions Case No. 125/1981 forfeiting the bail bond amount of Rs. 5,000 on the ground that accused Moghul remained absent on the date of hearing without any permission. I had ordered notice to the learned A.A.‑G. in order to ascertain, whether prior to the passing of the forfeiture order any show‑cause notice was served on the present applicant. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafferi, learned A.A.‑G. states that from the record it seems that no notice was served on the applicant prior to the passing of the above order, dated 5th June, 1982. 1 would, therefore, allow the present applicant and quash the order and remand the case to the learned Assistan'tl Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, to decide the question of forfeiture afresh after notice to the applicant in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C. S. G. D. Case remanded.