1993 P Cr (PLP)
SHAUKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1993 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 P Cr (PLP) (SHAUKAT ALI — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ashiq Hussain Malik for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, had been appearing before Court after his release on bail, but failed to appear on one date of hearing
Surety who had got accused arrested before next date of hearing, would be adequately punished by requiring him to pay one-fifth -of total surety amount.
Judgment & Decree
S. 514
Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, had been appearing before Court after his release on bail, but failed to appear on one date of hearing
Surety who had got accused arrested before next date of hearing, would be adequately punished by requiring him to pay one-fifth -of total surety amount. Ashiq Hussain Malik for Petitioner. Rao Khalil Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 17th October, 1992. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused for whom the petitioner stood surety had been appearing before the Court concerned after his release on bail, but could not appear on 14-7-1990 and when notice was issued for 29-11-1990 to the petitioner for forfeiture of his bond, he meanwhile got the accused arrested on 24-9-1990.
2. It is contended that in view of the fact that the petitioner had got the accused arrested before the next date of hearing fixed by the trial Court, the penalty imposed by the learned Judge on the petitioner as a result of the forfeiture of his surety is excessive. It does not appear that the petitioner gained any benefit from standing surety for accused Abdul Qadir Shah nor does he appear to be in any way connected with his criminal activities or with his escape.
3. Taking all the circumstances into account, I find that the petitioner had indeed forfeited his bond, but I consider that at the same time one-fifth of the bond i.e. RS.5,000 need not have been required from him and that in all events his default would be adequately punished by requiring him to pay a sum of Rs.1,
000. The bond shall be forfeited to the extent of ' Rs.1,
000. The petitioner shall deposit the forfeited amount of Rs.1,000 within two weeks with the concerned Court. The petition is disposed of. H.B.T./S-336/L Order accordingly.