NISAR AHMAD vs THE 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 for each case due to the non-appearance of the accused persons. The core legal question concerns whether the forfeiture of the entire surety amount is justified when the accused's absence was not willful, the surety acted on humanitarian grounds without personal gain, and the accused were subsequently acquitted by the trial court. Upon review, the Court held that the penalty was excessive given the circumstances. The Court determined that the absence of the accused was not intentional but resulted from a bona fide mistake. Consequently, the Court modified the impugned order by reducing the forfeited amount from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 5,000 for each case. The key principle laid down is that while courts have the authority to forfeit surety bonds, the quantum of penalty should be proportionate, taking into account the surety's lack of personal gain, the nature of the accused's absence, and the final outcome of the trial.
- Can a court reduce the amount of a forfeited surety bond if the surety acted on humanitarian grounds without personal gain?
- Is the subsequent acquittal of an accused a relevant factor in determining the penalty for a forfeited surety bond?
- Does the absence of willful intent by an accused justify the reduction of a forfeited surety bond penalty?
ORDER
' SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---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 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 hand, learned A.A.- G. Opposed the instant petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioner is a poor illiterate person who stood surety for Muhammad Pervaiz and Nisar out of benevolence and humanitarian consideration 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 bona fide 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,5,000 each. The petitioner shall deposit the forfeited amount within two weeks with the concerned Court.
6. With the above modification, this petition is dismissed.