2007 PLP 1808 (YLR)
JAMIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1808 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Salim Khan, J |
| Parties | JAMIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1808 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1808 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Salim Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1808 (YLR) (JAMIL — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khalid Rehman for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 25th January, 2007.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 514 & 439
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.11
Responsibility of verifier of bail bond
Accused for whom two persons stood sureties, having absented from the court, notices were issued to said two sureties under S.514, Cr. P. C.
Petitioner was verifier of bail bond executed by said two sureties
One, of the sureties appeared in the court, but second one could not be brought to the court by the petitioner despite many opportunities were given to him and police assistance was also provided to him
Trial Court finding petitioner equally responsible in view of the terms and conditions of the bail bond, directed him to deposit amount of surety bond
Order of the court granting bail, apparently, was to the effect that accused and her two sureties were bound to pay the amount; and that bail bond was to be submitted to the satisfaction of the court
Verification/attestation of the bail bond was only for the purpose of satisfying the court that sureties were reliable persons having financial means and Court had not directed to bind down the verifier as third surety
Acceptance of the bond by the court had shown that court was satisfied with the verification/attestation of the petitioner
Petitioner being verifier could be prosecuted, if it was ever proved that his verification by itself was incorrect, which was not the case
Trial Court, in circumstances had exceeded its authority under the provisions of S.514, Cr.P.C. and impugned order which had overstepped the legal limits, was not maintainable--Impugned order to the extent of binding petitioner to deposit amount, was set aside. PLD 1972 AJK 42 and 2004 YLR 1240 rel. Waheedullah for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SALIM KHAN, J.
Vide order dated 23-11-2006 in case No.157/4, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan directed the petitioner, being verifier of the bond and equally responsible in view of the terms and condition of the bail bond, to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000 within 15 days.
2. The facts leading to the said order were that Mst. Samina was charged for offence under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 vide F.I.R. No.305 dated 6-10-2002. She was ordered to be released on bail with two sureties. Abdus Sattar and Muhammad Sherein stood sureties for her and Jamil petitioner verified the bail bond. The accused absented herself and notice was issued to the sureties under section 514, Cr.P.C. Abdus Sattar surety appeared while Muhammad Sherein could out (sic) and could not be brought to the Court by the present petitioner in spite of the fact that many opportunities were given to him and police assistance was also provided to the present petitioner.
3. I heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was only a verifier of the bail bond and was not bound by the terms and conditions of the bail bond. He relied on PLD 1972 AJK 42, 1999 Pakistan Criminal Law Journal 1079 and 2004 YLR 1240.
5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other side, contended that the present petitioner had taken it upon himself that he would pay the amount if the sureties could not pay the same. The provisions of sections 514 and 599 Cr.P.C. have been explained in the above mentioned judgments along with other relevant provisions. It has been held that the verifier/attestator of the bail bond is not bound by the terms of the bond. Section 514 Cr.P.C. includes the words "persons bound by such bond". The order of the Court granting bail, apparently, was to the effect that the original accused and her two sureties were bound to pay the amount. The bail bond was to be submitted to the satisfaction of the Court. The verification/attestation of the bail bond was only for the purpose of satisfying the Court that the sureties were reliable and persons of financial means. It was never the direction of the Court to bound down the verifier as third surety besides the accused and her sureties. The acceptance of the bond by the Court shows that the Court was satisfied with the verification/attestation by the present petitioner. The words in the bond, binding the verifier/attestator are beyond the orders of the Court and do not bring the verifier/attestator within the purview of the .words "persons bound by such bond". Such a verifier could be prosecuted otherwise if it was ever proved that the verification by itself was incorrect, which is not the case in hand.
6. In the circumstances of this case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mardan has exceeded his authority under the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. His impugned order dated 23-11-2006 oversteps the legal limits, and is, therefore, not maintainable. I, therefore, accept the present Criminal Revision and set aside the impugned order to the extent of binding the present petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000 as confiscated amount of the bail bond. H.B.T./85/P Revision accepted.