Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1070 2018 SLD 1070 2018 PCRLJ 604
Peshawar High Court
Cr. R. No. 27-A of 2015, decision & hearing Dated: 12-07-2017.
SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, JUSTICE
Sajjad Afzal Khan for Petitioners. Yasir Zahoor Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General for the State.

SYED ASGHAR SHAH AND 2 OTHERS

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 561-A & 439---Revision---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Revision petition was not maintainable before the High Court, however the Court had ample power to convert revision petition into petition under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. for its disposal on merits in the larger interest of justice. Muhammad Akhtar v. The State 1993 MLD 370 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 514 & 561-A---Forfeiture of bond---Issuing of show-cause notice to sureties---Scope---Case under Ss. 365-B & 34, P.P.C. was registered by a person regarding abduction of his wife---Said abductee, after recovery, in her statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. showed her willingness to go with her cousin/petitioner---Judicial Magistrate allowed her to go with one petitioner subject to his furnishing of personal bond in the sum of rupees five lac to ensure safety and security of abductee and to produce her before any court as and when required---Petitioners submitted requisite surety bonds in the court and she was handed over to one petitioner---Subsequently, the lady was murdered by her husband and case was registered against him---Judicial Magistrate forfeited the bonds submitted by the petitioners and show cause notices were served upon them---Petitioners submitted their written reply and consequently, the petitioners were directed to deposit one third portion of the amount of surety bonds---Petitioners filed a revision petition against the said order, which was dismissed---Validity---Present criminal revision petition was converted into petition under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. by the High Court for its disposal on merit---Record showed that petitioners stood sureties for safety and security of the deceased lady and in that respect they furnished personal surety bonds before the court; however, they failed to discharge their legal obligation for which they stood sureties---If there were any issues regarding her safety and security, then they should have applied to the court concerned for discharge of their surety bond---Replies of petitioners to the show-cause notices showed that they had allowed deceased lady to go to…
🔒
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