NISAR AHMAD vs STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, which confiscated the petitioner's surety bonds and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 in each of two cases due to the absence of the accused persons. The core legal question before the Court was whether the forfeiture of the entire surety amount was justified given the circumstances of the petitioner and the subsequent acquittal of the accused. The High Court observed that the petitioner, an illiterate individual, had acted out of humanitarian considerations without personal gain, and that the accused's absence was not wilful but resulted from a bona fide mistake. Furthermore, the Court noted that the accused had since appeared and been acquitted by the trial court. Consequently, the Court held that the penalty was excessive. The ratio established is that while surety forfeiture is a legal consequence of an accused's absence, the court retains discretion to mitigate the penalty amount based on the surety's intent, financial status, and the eventual outcome of the trial, particularly where the absence was not intentional.
- Can a court reduce the amount of a forfeited surety bond based on the surety's financial circumstances and lack of personal gain?
- Does the subsequent acquittal of an accused person justify the mitigation of a previously forfeited surety bond penalty?
ORDER
Petitioner Nisar Ahmad through the instant petition has challenged the order dated 13.4.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad whereby he confiscated the surety bond and ordered to pay the surety amount in each case i,e, Rs, 25,000/- + Rs, 25,000/- to the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a poor person and has no source at all the to pay the said surety amount which is too harsh; that the petitioner stood surety on the humanitarian basis and that the absence of the accused was not wilful as the accused appeared before the Court in which he submitted the bail bonds. On the other hands learned AAG opposed the instant petition.
3. Arguments heatd. Record perused.
4. The petitioner is a poor illiterate person who stood surety for Muhammad Pervaiz and Nisar out of benevolence and humanitarian considerations and not for any monetary personal gain. Further taking into the consideration that the accused Muhammad Pervaiz and Nisar appeared were subsequently acquitted by the trial Court before passing the impugned order.
5. Keeping in view that the absence of both the accused was not intentional but due to bonafide Mistake, subsequent their arrest and acquittal by the trial Court, coupled with the fact that the petitioner stood surety for not any personal gain, I reduce the forfeited amount from Rs, 25,000/- to Rs, 5000/- each The petitioner shall deposit the forfeited amount within two weeks with the concerned Court.
6. With the above modication, this petition is dismissed.