| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 2817 2012 SLD 2817 2012 PLD 13 |
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Revision No. 1/L of 2011, decided on 3rd November, 2011.
DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Criminal Revision No. 1/L of 2011, decided on 3rd November, 2011.
DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
IMDAD HUSSAIN and another
VS
THE STATE
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 514---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10/11/13/14---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.203-DD---Zina, abduction, selling and buying person for purposes of prostitution---Forfeiture of surety bond---Accused for whom petitioner stood surety having slipped away from the court during the pronouncement of by the Trial Court---Accused was declared as proclaimed offender and notice was also issued to the petitioner surety and since surety was not in his house, Police forced his nephew to pay the amount of surety---Nephew of the petitioner who had no other option, except to deposit amount of surety, deposited the same---Validity---Petitioner surety had faithfully discharged his obligation by producing accused on each date of hearing---Accused slipped away from the court when the Trial Court was announcing the ---Surety had fulfilled his obligation---Lapse, if any, was committed by the representatives of the law enforcing agencies, who were present in the court; it was their responsibility to show vigilance and keep accused under close watch---Surety was definitely liable to produce accused, but once had produced him in the court, his obligation for that particular day was fulfilled and he was discharged of his duty---Surety having already fulfilled his obligation to produce accused on the date of hearing, forfeiture of bond submitted by him, in circumstances, would be oppressive, and unjust---Impugned order which had entailed the forfeiture of the bond and direction to the nephew of petitioner/surety instead to pay full amount of surety, could not be sustained---Impugned order was set aside and petitioner stood discharged of his bail bonds. Shafiq Ahmed and others v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 623; Shatab Khan and another v. The State PLD 1996 Lah. 600; Lahore Stock Exchange Ltd. v. Asmat Ullah Sheikh PLD 1996 Lah. 602; Farman Ali v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 2102 and Ghulam Qadir Siyal v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 554 ref. ORDER DR. FIDA MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---This revision petition jointly filed by Imdad Hussain and Rana Iftikhar Hussain, under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of…
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