Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 2924 2015 SLD 2924 2015 PCRLJ 1441
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. S-08 and M.A. No. 5080 of 2014, decided on 6th January, 2015
AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J
Faiz Muhammad M. Larik for Applicant/surety. Khadim Hussain Khooharo, D.P.G. for the State.

GHULAM MUHAMMAD--Applicant

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 514---Surety bond, forfeiture of---Reduction in fine imposed on surety---Accused having been granted bail, applicant stood surety for him by executing surety bond---Accused having remained absent from the court, Trial Court forfeited surety bond---Surety did not show any carelessness in his effort to produce accused before the trial court and got accused apprehended and produced him before the concerned Police, but Police did not mention that fact in the Mashirnama of the arrest---Accused, ultimately stood acquitted from the charge vide of the Trial Court---Amount of fine imposed on surety, was reduced from Rs.5,00,000 to Rs.2,50,000, in circumstances. ORDER AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---This criminal revision application has been directed by the applicant/surety Ghulam Muhammad Khoso against the Order dated 19-12-2013, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, whereby he has fined him to pay Rs.500,000 as penalty of the surety bond, which he had executed and submitted in the trial Court for production of accused Abdul Jabbar on each and every date of hearing. The facts leading to filing instant criminal revision application are that, accused Abdul Jabbar was booked in crime No.05/2007 of P.S. RD-44, registered under sections 302, 324, 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(iv), 148, 149, P.P.C. Subsequently, he was granted bail, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.500,000. The applicant stood surety for said accused before learned trial Court and executed such bond. It is further revealed, that accused Abdul Jabbar remained absent from the learned trial Court and he was impersonated by one Abdul Fatah in trial Court, therefore the trial Court forfeited the surety bond and the applicant was issued notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. who filed its reply, and ultimately the learned trial Court passed the impugned Order. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that, as and when applicant came to known that the accused has absented himself from the trial Court, he started searching for him and ultimately succeeded to get him apprehended and produced the accused at concerned police station, but the incharge…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492