Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1993 P Cr. L J 2272

ASAD ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE

Citation1993 P Cr. L J 2272
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Cr1.Revision No,155 of 1991
Date1992-10-18
Judge(s)Mian Abdul Khaliq
ResultOrder accordingly

' This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27-2-1991 passed by Khawaja Aurangzeb, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad by which the bail bond of the petitioner was forfeited and was ordered to deposit Rs,25,000.

2. The petitioner stood surety of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar, his daughter for Rs,25,000 in case F.I.R.

No,13/1988 Police Station Chak Jhumra under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and after her release on bail the accused Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar was again abducted on 30-5-1989 by her co-accused Imdad Khan alongwith others for which the petitioner had lodged F.I.R. No,387/89 and due to abduction of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar she could not attend the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 27-2-1991. The learned Additional Sessions Judge issued non-bailable warrants of arrest of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar and also made the impugned order i,e. Forfeiture of the petitioner's surety bond of Rs,25,000 and directed him to deposit the same in the Government Treasury. It is contended that the accused Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar could not appear in the Court as she had been kidnapped by her co-accused and an F.I.R. No,387/89 was lodged by the petitioner. Learned counsel has not challenged the impugned order seriously, but has prayed for a lenient view. On the face of it, it seems clear that the petitioner being father of the accused had stood surety for her, but he certainly appeared to have taken his responsibility altogether too lightly. It does not appear that the petitioner either gained any benefit from standing surety for Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar, his daughter nor he appeared to be in any way connected with her criminal activity or with her escape. Taking all these circumstances into account I find that the petitioner had indeed forfeited his bond, but I consider at the same time that the full amount of the bond need not have been required from him and that in all the events the default will be adequately punished by requiring him to pay an amount of Rs,5,000 and I alter the impugned . The petitioner shall deposit the forfeited amount of Rs,5,000 within one month in the concerned Court.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch