Petitioner above named, being aggrieved by order dated 22nd March, 1982 of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi, by which petitioner has been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.
20,000 in respect of the surety bond executed by the petitioner, for due appearance of accused Muhammad Bostan, before the said Court, in a case Crime No. 37/82 under section 161, P. P. C. Read With section 5 (2) of Act 11 of 1947, on account of accused failure to appear, has filed the above Petition, on the following facts and grounds :-
2. The brief facts of the case are, that one Muhammad Bostan son of Saif Ali, a Head Constable of Police at Zeero Mile Traffic Post (Traffic Branch) Karachi was involved in a case, Crime No. 37/82 under section 161, p. P. C. Read with section 5 (2) of Act 11 of 1947. In nutshell he was accused of taking bribe from somebody. He, therefore, approached the Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi on 15th March, 1982 for his bail before arrest. The learned Judge was pleased to grant him anticipatory interim bail in the sum of Rs. 20,000 and adjourned the hearing of bail application for confirmation to 22nd March, 1982. He also issued notice to the State.
3. Petitioner is a Transporter and was approached by the accused to stand surety for him, for he was not in a position to arrange for the same. Petitioner, on humanitarian grounds, acted through mere benevolence stood surety for the accused and executed bond.
4. On 23rd March, 1982, the prosecution raised an objection, that the Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction, as the matter was to be tried by the Martial Law Authorities, through Summary Military Court. The accused after having come to know about it, slipped away from the Court before the matter was taken up. It was because of the negligence of the prosecution and Investigating Officer, who disclosed the above facts to the accused before the matter was taken up by the Court, he disappeared.
5. The learned Judge then and there passed the impugned order crated 22nd March, 1982 directing the petitioner/surety to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 20,000 within 3 days. An application was moved on behalf of the surety for grant of 15 days time for producing the accused, but the same was rejected though it was made at 12 noon on the same day, before the impugned order was passed.
6. On 25th March, 1982, 3 days after the impugned final order was passed, the learned Judge issued Show-cause Notice directing surety/ petitioner to produce the accused before S. P. A. C. E. Karachi within 3 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which he was informed that his surety amount would be forfeited.
7. The Petitioner above named on the basis of above facts has challenged the impugned order dated 22nd March, 1982 of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi, on the grounds mentioned in the above Petition.
8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner in support of the above Petition submitted, that the order dated 22nd March, 1982 was passed in utter disregard of the provisions of section `14, Cr. P. C. Which is obvious from Show-cause Notice dated 25th March, 1982 and as such on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned Advocate appearing for State at the outset submitted, that he does not support the impugned order Annexure-B purporting to have been passed on 22nd March, 1982, before issuance of notice dated 25th March, 1982 Annexure-D and forfeiture of the bond in question, as the said order prima facie is in violation of the provisions of section 594 (1), Cr. P. C.
10. 1 have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and has gone through the impugned order dated 22nd March, 1982 and Show-cause Notice dated 25th March, 1982 of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Karachi, I agree with the contentions of the learned Advocates that order dated 22nd March, 1982 is in utter violations of the provisions of section 514 (1), Cr. P. C. Which is clear from notice dated 25th March, 1982.
11. Therefore, I allow the above Petition and set aside impugned order dated 22nd March, 1982 of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corrup--tion, Karachi, as the said order has been passed in utter disregard of the A provisions of section 514 (1), Cr. P. C.
12. Before parting with the above Petition, I would like to make it clear, that competent Court will be at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner in accordance with the provisions of section 514 (1), Cr. P.
C. On forfeiture of the surety bond executed by the petitioner, if the accused in question has jumped the bail before such Court.