AMIR ZAMAN & another vs STATE
This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dargai, which forfeited one-half of the bail bonds furnished by the appellants after the accused for whom they stood surety absconded. The core legal question was whether the trial court's forfeiture of the bail bond amount was excessive or legally improper given the appellants' claims of financial hardship and benevolent intent. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the impugned order was correct and legal. The court reasoned that sureties are under a binding legal obligation to produce the accused in court as per their undertaking. Once an accused jumps bail, the entire surety amount is liable to confiscation. The court affirmed the principle that no lenient view should be taken in matters of sureties, as doing so encourages abscondence. Since the trial court had already exercised leniency by forfeiting only half the bond amount, the appellate court found no grounds to interfere with the exercise of discretion.
- Is a surety entitled to leniency in bail bond forfeiture based on their financial condition or lack of monetary gain?
- Does the court have the authority to forfeit the entire amount of a bail bond when an accused absconds?
- Is the forfeiture of a bail bond amount a matter where the court should avoid undue leniency to discourage abscondence?
- Section 212, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 216, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 216-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant Criminal Appeal No, 261/2006, Amir Zaman and Muhammad Umer, appellants have called in question the order dated 1.4.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Dargai, whereby he forfeited one half of the bail bonds of the appellants.
2. Brief and relevant facts of the case are, that appellants stood sureties for accused Javed Khan and Sabz Ali. in case FIR No, 107 dated 24.7.2002, registered under Sections 212/216/216-A Cr.P.C., at Police Station Sakhakot, Malakand Agency. However, after having been released on bail, said accused Ja.ved Khan and Sabz Ali remained absent and the sureties were asked to produce the said accused. Since they failed to produce the accused in Court, therefore, they were given notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, vide impugned order, they were dened to pay a sum of Rs, 25,000/- each.
The appellants were directed to deposit the confiscated amount with the learned trial Court within one month.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants maintained that the impugned order is harsh and the financial condition of the petitioners has not been taken into consideration while imposing penalty, that the appellants stood surety for accused Javed Khan and Sabz Ali out of benevolence, without any monetary gain; that the imposition of penalty was improper, unjust and unreasonable; that no inquiry was made to ascertain if the appellants had any direct interest with the accused and that while imposing penalty, a balance should have been made between undue leniency and undue severity which was not made. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Shah and others vs. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J. 2316 Lahore), Amanullah and others vs. The State (1997 P Cr.L.J. 1927), Muhammad Khan vs. The State (1986 PCr.L.J. 2028) and Shatab Khan and another vs. The State (PLD 1996 Lahore 600).
4. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that for whatever reason the appellants had become sureties, they were under legal obligation to discharge their liability under the bail bonds furnished, by them. After undertaking the liability themselves, it does not lie in their mouth to say that on account of their financial condition, they cannot pay the amount of bond executed by them and stood sureties of the accused out of benevolence and without and monetary gain. There is no legal embargo that the amount of bail bond in full cannot be forfeited. In a case where an accused person jumps bail bond the entire surety amount becomes liable to confiscation. The surety is liable to produce the accused in Court in view of his undertaking. It was held in Muhammad Aslam and another vs. The State (2004 SCMR 211) that no lenient view to be taken in the matters of sureties and the entire amount of the bail bond be recovered as an amount of penalty as it encourages the people to go into abscondence.
5. In the instant case, the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by forfeiting one half of the bail bonds i,e, Rs, 25.000/- each and I see no good ground to further reduce the amount of surety. The impugned order is correct, proper and legal and does not call for interference of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction. The Criminal Appeal fails, which is hereby dismissed in limine.