Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL LATIF VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Saghir AhmadMalik Muhammad Aslam
2008 P Cr
2008 P Cr. L J 822
[Lahore]
Before Saghir Ahmad, J
ABDUL LATIF----Petitioner
versus
THE STATE----Respondent
Criminal Revision No.178 of 2005/BWP, decided on 28th January, 2008.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 514---Forfeiture of bail bond---Validity---Petitioner while becoming surety had undertaken that the accused for whom he was submitting bond would surrender himself before the Court in every eventuality irrespective of the fact that his bail application was dismissed on merits or was allowed---Where the accused defaulted in appearance at the last crucial moment i.e. announcement of the order, the petitioner surety would become liable in terms of the bail bond---Initiation of proceedings under S.514, Cr.P.C., therefore, was quite in accordance with law---Trial of main case had ended in compromise and the accused had been acquitted---Amount of penalty of Rs.30,000 imposed upon the petitioner was reduced to Rs.15,000 in circumstances---Revision petition was disposed of accordingly.
Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioner.
Mirza Mukhtar Baig, D.P.-G. for the State.
ORDER
SAGHIR AHMAD, J.--- The petitioner stood surety and submitted bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 for Muhammad Naveed accused of case F.I.R. No.299 Police Station Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan at the time when said accused was allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court. It so happened that subsequently before confirmation of his bail, the accused absented himself, as a result whereof, proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C., were initiated against the present petitioner, which ultimately ended in forfeiture of his bond and imposition of penalty of Rs.30,000 i.e, full amount of the bond vide impugned order, dated 19-9-2005.
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the above order of the learned trial Court on the ground that accused had been appearing before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and even had appeared on the day when arguments were heard and case was kept pending for announcement of orders, it was for this reason that accused had gone to fetch his learned counsel and in his absence the application was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is thus, contended that by appearance of the accused even on the last date of hearing, the petitioner stood absolved of his duty, as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside, which even otherwise, is quite harsh.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The above contention of the learned counsel is substantiated by the impugned order itself, where it is specifically mentioned that accused had appeared in the early hours of the day but escaped when the order was going to be announced. At the same time, mere appearance of the accused at one point of time on the last date would not mean that the surety stood absolved of his responsibility. When someone becomes surety, he as a matter of fact, undertakes that the accused for whom he is submitting bond, shall surrender himself before the Court in every eventuality irrespective of the fact that his bail application is dismissed on merits or is allowed otherwise. Thus, where the accused defaulted in appearance at the last crucial moment i.e. announcement of the order, the petitioner/surety would become liable in terms of the bail bond. In these circumstances, initiation of proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C., were quite in accordance with law. However, it is evident from the available record that subsequently, the trial of the main case has ended in compromise and the accused therein have been acquitted. Therefore, by taking a lenient view, while maintaining the impugned order, dated 17-11-2005 the amount of penalty of Rs.30,000 is reduced to Rs.15,000 to be deposited by the petitioner in the Government treasury within a period of fortnight from today, failing which the law shall take its own course.
N.H.Q./A-261/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Penalty reduced.