| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 1313 2013 SLD 1313 2013 MLD 872 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. S-41 of 2012, decision Dated: 26-11-2012.
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JUSTICE
Akbar Ali Dahar for Applicant. Naimatullah Bhurgri for the State.
Criminal Revision Application No. S-41 of 2012, decision Dated: 26-11-2012.
NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JUSTICE
Akbar Ali Dahar for Applicant. Naimatullah Bhurgri for the State.
SIKANDER ALI
VS
THE STATE
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 514
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 514---Bail bond, forfeiture of---Reduction in surety amount---Forfeiture of entire bond of surety by court without proof of mala fide or personal gain of surety---Propriety---Accused was granted bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000---Applicant stood surety for accused, who absconded after getting bail---Trial Court forfeited entire bond of surety and imposed full fine on surety of Rs.50,000---Surety contended that he stood surety only on humanitarian grounds and gained no monetary benefit in such regard; that he made all possible efforts to produce the accused, and that he was a poor person with a large family and did not have sufficient sources of income---Validity---Imposing entire fine upon the surety without any proof of mala fide or personal gain was not justified---Record did not show as to what inquiry , if any, had been made before the Trial Court in assessing the surety's laxity/carelessness or otherwise in his efforts to produce the accused---Revision application was allowed, amount of surety forfeited was reduced from Rs.50,000 each to Rs.37,000 and applicant was directed to deposit the same before the Trial Court within one month. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 514---Forfeiture of bail bond---Imposition of fine---Principles---Approach of court should be dynamic and progressive orientated while imposing entire fine upon the surety---Nature of offence, efforts made by surety to produce the accused and financial position of surety might be taken into consideration while passing orders---Balance should be kept between undue severity and undue leniency---Undue severity might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give surety for persons. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: NAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, JUSTICE:---.--- Applicant/surety Sikandar Ali Gopang through this criminal revision application has challenged the order dated 6-5-2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, in Sessions Case No.407 of 2010, re State v. Ghulam Sarwar Gopang and others, Crime No.93 of 2000 of Police Station Naudero, under sections 324, 337-A(i), 337-H(2),…
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