Abdul Rehman vs The State
This criminal petition arises from an order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the petitioner as a surety was ordered to pay the entire surety amount of Rs. 50,000 following the non-appearance of the accused in Case F.I.R. No. 279/05 registered under Sections 342, 379, 337-H(ii), 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station City Renala Khurd, District Okara. The core legal question concerns the legality of forfeiting a surety bond and penalizing the surety ex parte without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard or verifying claims of a compromise. The Lahore High Court held that passing an order ex parte without considering the surety's viewpoint and proper notice warrants setting aside the impugned order. The court laid down the principle that a surety must be given a proper hearing and notice before a surety bond penalty is enforced, ensuring principles of natural justice are upheld.
- Whether a surety can be burdened with the payment of a surety amount without being given a proper notice and opportunity of being heard?
- Is an ex parte order forfeiting a surety bond sustainable when the surety pleads a misunderstanding arising from a compromise between the parties?
- Can the appellate or revisional court remand a matter back to the trial court for re-hearing when the surety's point of view was not considered?
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. SH. ABDUL RASHID, J. - Through this petition the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by the learned Addl.
2. Sessions Judge in. Case F.I.R. No.- 279/05, darted 27.12.2005, under Sections 342/379/337- H(ii)/T09/148/149, P.P.C, registered at Police Station, City Renala Khurd, District Okara, whereby, the petitioner surety has been burdened to pay entire surety amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been assailed.
3. The petitioner stood surety for Muhammad Atif accused in the subject case F.I.R, and submitted bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/r for appearance of the accused before the learned Court on each and every date on 7.1.2006 the accused did not appear before the Trial Court and consequently the impugned order had been passed.
4. 2 It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that due to compromise between the complainant and, the accused ,for whom the petitioner stood surety the cade was cancelled and due to said misunderstanding the accused did not appear and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order did not. Issue proper notice to the petitioner and did not collect the true facts on the file for proper adjudication of this case.
3. The impugned order reveals that it had been passed ex parte and the petitioner's point of view has not been considered, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for re-hearing the case after giving due hearing to the petitioner.