IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr.Misc.Appln.No.179
of 2016
Siraj Khan
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of Hearing : 01.11.2017
Mr. Sajjad Ali Dashti, advocate for the applicant
Mr. Muntazir Mehdi, DPG
O
R D E R
.-.-.-.-.-.
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: Through instant criminal misc. application, the applicant
has assailed the order dated 08.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge
Karachi South in Session Case No.1038/2016, FIR No.186/2016, registered under Section 23(i)-A of Sindh
Arms Act at PS Aram Bagh, Karachi.
2. Learned counsel submits that the applicant
stood surety for accused Ubaidullah but after
releasing on bail, he became absconder. Applicant tried to trace him for producing
before learned trial Court but failed. 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 up to 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