Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 690 2007 SLD 690 2007 PLD 428
Lahore High Court
Criminal Revision No. 5 of 2007, decided on 15th February, 2007
HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J
Mian Allah Ditta for Petitioner. Ishaque Masih Naz, Deputy Prosecutor General for the State

ALLAH DITTA

VS

THE STATE

Law: Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 10(2),13,14

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 514

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 514---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Ss.10(2), 13 & 14---Forfeiture of surety bond---Accused for whom petitioner stood surety by executing bond having failed to appear before the court, bail bonds were forfeited and notice under S.514, Cr.P.C. was issued to petitioner/surety---Petitioner denied execution of surety bonds, but surety bonds submitted and executed by him were duly thumb marked by him and same contained signatures of the person who had identified petitioner at the relevant time---Surety bonds were always accepted by concerned court after satisfying the identity of surety and witnesses---Presumption of correctness and regularity was attached to the judicial proceedings--After executing the bail bonds, petitioner/surety could not be allowed to turn volte-face by simply denying the very execution of the same---Such practice on the part of sureties could not be allowed---Petitioner having duly submitted and executed Surety bond, his plea that he had not executed surety bond, was repelled---Accused for whom petitioner stood surety having jumped the bail bonds and despite expiry of period of three years having failed to appear before the court to face the trial and having remained fugitive, petition against order forfeiting surety bonds, did not merit acceptance---Once accused jumped the bail bonds, entire surety amount would become liable to be forfeited in absence of any mitigating circumstances---No mitigating circumstances had been found in favour of petitioner---Conduct of petitioner, whereby he had opted to straightaway deny the execution of bail bonds instead of accepting his liability, did not entitle him to any relief. Muhammad Safeer v. Faqir Khan 2000 SCMR 312 and Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267 ref. ORDER HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Order dated 23-1-2007 passed in this Criminal Revision would be deemed as part of the instant order. 2. In pursuance of the said order i.e. 23-1-2007, a separate file was opened by the office and the notice was issued to Rehmat Masih. The said notice has been received back with the information that the said Rehmat Masih had…
🔒
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