IZZAT ALI vs STATE
This criminal revision petition arises from an order of the Special Judge Central, Faisalabad, forfeiting 50 percent of a bail bond amount due to the failure of the accused, Muhammad Aslam, to appear before the trial court. The petitioner, Izzat Ali, who stood surety for the accused, challenged the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- after the accused absconded. The core legal question was whether the penalty imposed upon the surety for the accused's non-appearance warranted reduction given the petitioner's financial circumstances and lack of personal gain. The Lahore High Court held that while the trial court was justified in imposing a penalty due to the surety's failure to produce the accused, a balance must be struck between undue leniency and undue severity. Considering the petitioner's poverty and the absence of evidence suggesting connivance in the accused's disappearance, the Court reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. The key principle laid down is that in forfeiture proceedings, courts must exercise discretion by weighing the surety's financial status and lack of bad faith against the necessity of ensuring the accused's attendance.
- Can a court reduce the penalty imposed on a surety for the non-appearance of an accused if the surety acted without bad faith?
- Does a court have the discretion to mitigate the forfeiture amount of a bail bond based on the financial status of the surety?
- Is a surety liable for the full amount of a bail bond if the accused absconds without the surety's connivance?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 17, Immigration Ordinance 1979
- Section 22, Immigration Ordinance 1979
1. Izzat Ali petitioner stood surety for one Muhammad Aslam who was granted bail by the learned Special Judge Central, Faisalabad in case F.I.R. No, 72/2003 dated. 10.9.2003 for offence under Sections 17/22 of the Immigration Ordinance registered at Police Station FIA Faislabad. After submission of challan, the learned trial Judge summoned the said Muhammad Aalam accused who had left the country without permission of the trial Court and did not appear before it to face trial as a result of which his bail was cancelled and notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner/surety and his reply being not satisfactory, the learned trial Court while taking a lenient view vide order dated 26.7.2006 forfeited 50 percent amount of the bail bond submitted by the petitioner. He was directed to deposit an amount of Rs, 50,000/- within one month in the Government treasury. Hence this revision petition.
2. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset prayed for reduction in the penalty imposed upon the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not gained any monetary benefit from the accused and being a friend of Muhammad Aslam accused, this was an act of benevolence on the part of the petitioner who is a poor person and a lenient view should be taken in the matter.
3. 3.The learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. 4.Admittedly the accused person for whom the petitioner stood surety did not appear before the trial Court at the time when the case was fixed for hearing and further, the petitioner also failed to produce him before the learned Court. The learned trial Court was, therefore, fully justified to impose penalty upon the petitioner. However, as the petitioner stood surety only on humanitarian ground and not for any monetary benefit and even otherwise no connivance about disappearance of the accused had been alleged against him coupled with the fact that he is a poor person, a balance has to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity, taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioner. The petitioner is a poor person who seems to be trapped in this situation.
5. 5.For what has been discussed above, the impugned order dated 26.7.2006 to the extent of forfeiture of surety bond is maintained. However, the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs, 50,000/- to Rs, 25,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the same in the Government treasury within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the entire amount of Rs, 50,000/- shall be recovered from him. This petition is disposed of.