IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr.Rev.Appln.No.159
of 2016
Asif
Qureshi
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of Hearing : 19.10.2017
Mr. S.M.Salam Kazmi, advocate for the applicant
Mr. Muntazir Mehdi,
DPG
O
R D E R
.-.-.-.-.-.
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Through instant criminal revision application, the
applicant has assailed the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by learned IInd
Additional Sessions Judge Karachi Central
in Session Case No.499/2012, FIR No.175/2012, registered under Section 302/34 PPC at PS
Khwaja Ajmer Nagri.
2. Learned counsel submits that the applicant
stood surety for accused on humanitarian ground as after getting bail, accused
could not furnish surety and at the request of his family members,
applicant/surety offered himself to furnish surety for accused. According to
him, after getting bail, accused was
attending the court but on 25.09.2013, he became absconder and subsequently
he was arrested and after arrest of
accused, applicant/surety filed application for return of surety on
11.08.2016 and after filing such application, on same date,
notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C
was issued to him to which
applicant/surety replied on 29.09.2016 but learned trial Court
without appreciating the
fact that notice could not be served
upon applicant/surety, imposed penalty of
full of surety vide impugned order. He
submits that as per the law, notice was required to be issued to
applicant/surety and without such notice, applicant/surety could not be
penalized. He further submits that if an amount is reduced upto quarter of
surety amount, applicant/surety is ready to deposit the same. He put reliance upon the case of Muhammad
Ashraf and another v. The state (1997
SCMR 1387) and Abid Hussain v. The State (2007 YLR Lahore 1305).
3. Learned DPG for the State opposed the instant
application and submits that case-laws
cited by learned counsel for the applicant are older ones and now the Court are comparatively harsh regarding forfeiting of surety amount. According to him, lenient view
of the Court has multiplied due to increasing tendency of absconding of
accused after granting bail.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced
and material available on record. The applicant stood surety on 25.09.2013 and on the same day, NBWs
were issued by trial
Court as well as order to issue notice to surety was passed. However, it appears from record that
notice was not actually served upon the applicant/surety. Compliance of Section
514 Cr.P.C for service of notice is
a mandatory provision but it
appears that applicant/surety was well aware of non-appearance/absconding of
accused as he appeared and filed
application for return of surety when he was satisfied that accused has been arrested by police. It is
also very much clear from record that applicant/surety has not played any role
in the re-arrest of accused. Therefore, lenient view is taken and applicant/surety is directed to deposit half
of the surety amount before trial Court.
5. With the above observation, instant
Crl.Rev.Application stands disposed of.
J U D G E