1994 PCRLJ 834

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE

Citation1994 PCRLJ 834

CourtLahore High Court

Case No.Criminal Revision No.695 of 1992

Date1992-11-15

Judge(s)Mian Abdul Khaliq

ResultRevision petition accepted

This criminal revision has been riled against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, dated 22-10-1992 whereby he forfeited the bonds submitted by the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. and ordered to issue warrants for the attachment of the property of the petitioner for 3-11-1992.

2. The petitioner stood surety for one Anzar Gull alias Ghulam Qadir Khan who was an accused in a case F.I.R. No-245/91 under section 302/34, P.P.C. Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, District Faisalabad, and was granted bail on 28-4-1992 till 7-5-1992. The petitioner had submitted bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 and it was interim bail bond till 7-5-1992.

3. The bail petition of the accused Anzar Gull remained pending and adjourned to various dates and he had been attending the Court on subsequent dates. On 20-7-1992 the accused Anzar Gull absented from the Court and his bail was cancelled and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. were initiated. The surety was given notice to appear on 5-9-1992 but he could not be served and the case was adjourned to 12-9-1992 thereafter to 21-9-1992. The petitioner appeared in the Court on 26-9-1992 and he submitted that he stood surety only for the limited period on 2& 1992 till 7-5-1992 and the proceedings against him under section 514, Cr.P.C. could not be initiated and he was not liable to produce the accused after 7-5-1992. On 26-9-1992 the petitioner was served with a notice why proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. may not be initiated against him, and the surety was directed to explain his position. On 22-10-1992 the surety bond was forfeited.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State counsel. The petitioner stood surety for accused Anzar Gull in the said case in the sum of Rs.50,000 on 28-4-1992 till 7-5-1992. The bail bond was not forfeited by the Additional Sessions Judge after absence of the accused and only notice was issued, to the petitioner which is not warranted by law. Moreover the liability of the petitioner was for specific date i.e. 7-5-1992 as is evident from the endorsement recorded on the bail bond dated 28-4-1992.

5. Pursuant to the above discussion the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

N.H.Q./S-392/L Revision petition accepted.