ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

 

Crl: Revision Application No.D-        52        of 2015.

 

 

DATE                         ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

 

 

1-     For orders on M.A.No.2271/2015 (Ex.Appln)

2-     For Katcha Peshi.

3-     For orders on M.A.No.2272/2015

4-     For orders on M.A.No.2273/2015 (Stay Appln)

 

 

20th. August, 2015.

 

 

                        Mr. Waheed Ali Samtio, Advocate for Applicant/Surety.

 

 

 

                        Through instant criminal revision application filed U/s 435& 439, Cr.P.C, the applicant has assailed order dated 26.9.2011 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur Mir’s in Special Case No. 16/2009 registered under Sections 324, 353, 436, 427, 147, 148, 149 P.P.C R/w Section 7                  Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Crime No.08/2009 at police station, Ahmedpur, District Khairpur Mir’s, whereby application filed by the applicant, who stood surety for his son namely Mubeen @ Meenu, has been dismissed.

 

                        Learned Counsel for applicant submits that sufficient reason was shown by the applicant/surety for not producing the accused Mubeen @ Meenu in Court, which has not been considered by the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, who has directed the applicant to deposit the surety amount within seven days.  Per learned Counsel, if sufficient time would have been allowed to the applicant/surety, he would have made efforts to produce accused in Court who was missing at that time and was not traceable to the applicant.

 

                        It appears that applicant stood surety of accused namely Mubeen @ Meenu in the above crime, being his father,  however  the  accused after grant of bail did not appear before the trial Court, whereafter, notices were issued to applicant/surety who took stance that accused who is infact his son, has become untraceable.

 

                        Instant revision has been filed against the above order after a lapse of about four years, whereas, no explanation whatsoever for such delay has been offered by the learned Counsel for the applicant. Moreover, the explanation offered by applicant/surety before the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Khairpur was also not satisfactory whereas, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned order, nor there is any substance in the instant criminal revision application, which is otherwise misconceived in facts and laws.  Accordingly, instant criminal revision application is dismissed in limine along with listed applications. However, the applicant may seek the remedy for reduction of surety amount if the law or facts of the case so permit.

 

JUDGE

JUDGE

 

A.R.BROHI