2008 P Cr (PLP)
KHIZAR HAYAT and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHIZAR HAYAT and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 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: 2008 P Cr (PLP) (KHIZAR HAYAT and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ameer Khan Niazi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 514
Forfeiture of surety bond and imposition of full surety amount on the surety
Sureties had impugned order of the Trial Court whereby full surety amount was imposed on them for their failure to produce accused persons involved in a murder case in the court
Sureties had contended that both accused . for whom they stood sureties had died due to the blast of a landmine
Fact was that both accused for whom sureties had given bonds were residents of Afghanistan and after their release on bail, they must have gone to Afghanistan
Stand taken by the sureties before the Trial Court and the High Court that accused had died due to the blast of a landmine, did not appeal to reason as they had failed to produce any evidence in support of the said vehement contention
No illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect existed to warrant interference with impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction of High Court, which was a speaking and legal one
Sureties were directed to deposit surety amount within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.
It is a revision petition against the impugned order whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed full surety amount on the sureties/petitioners who had failed to produce accused Shah Barat and Akhtar Muhammad, involved in a murder case.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition, contends that both the accused had died due to the blast of a land mine, they wanted to produce evidence before the learned trial Court but were not afforded opportunity and passed the impugned order.
3. Heard. Petitioners stood surety for accused Shah Barat and Akhtar Muhammad who were accused in a murder case and were allowed bail after arrest by this Court. When the challan was submitted and when they were summoned to face the trial, both accused Shah Barat and Akhtar Muhammad did not appear upon which proceedings were initiated against the sureties/petitioners. The petitioners took up the plea before the learned trial Court that both the accused had died due to the blast of a land mine, they wanted to produce evidence before the learned trial Court but were not afforded opportunity. But the fact remains that both the accused were residents of Afghanistan and after their release on bail they must have gone to Afghanistan. The stand taken by the petitioners before the learned trial Court as well as before this Court does not appeal to reason as they have failed to produce any evidence in support of the said vehement contention. In the afore-referred circumstances I am of the affirmed view that there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect to warrant interference with the impugned order in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court which is a speaking and legal one, so, this petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge within four days from today. The petitioners are directed to deposit the surety amount within a month from today failing which they shall be taken into custody and the said amount of surety shall be received as arrears of land revenue. H.B.T./K-51/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.