MUHAMMAD ALI and others vs THE STATE
This matter concerns criminal petitions filed against a High Court order that upheld the forfeiture of the entire surety amount of Rs. 2,00,000 each, imposed on the petitioners after the accused persons they stood surety for absconded and were declared proclaimed offenders. The core legal question was whether the forfeiture of the full surety amount remained justified given that the petitioners subsequently produced the accused before the trial court and the accused were ultimately acquitted. The Supreme Court, noting the subsequent production of the accused and their eventual acquittal, held that leniency was warranted on humanitarian grounds. Consequently, the Court modified the trial court's order, reducing the forfeited surety amount from Rs. 2,00,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 for each petitioner. The principle laid down is that while sureties are liable for the non-appearance of an accused, the subsequent production of the accused by the surety and their eventual acquittal are valid grounds for the court to exercise discretion and reduce the quantum of the forfeited surety amount.
- Can a court reduce the amount of a forfeited surety bond if the surety subsequently produces the accused before the trial court?
- Does the acquittal of an accused person provide a valid ground for the reduction of a previously forfeited surety bond?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 395, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- By this single order, we propose to dispose of Criminal Petitions Nos.2- K and 3-K of 2005 filed against the order dated 25-11-2004 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana, whereby Criminal Revision Applications Nos.77 and 78 of 2004 filed by petitioners were dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case, are that a case under sections 302/324/395/148/149, P.P.C.
Was registered against accused, namely, Perze Mali and Noor Hassan at Police Station Kashmore, District Jacobabad, vide F.I.R. No,96 of 2001. Both the accused were arrested and thereafter released on bail by the order of Special Judge for S.T.A. Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot. The petitioners stood sureties for a sum of Rs,2,00,000. During the trial both the aforesaid accused absented themselves on 19-7-2003 and 25-7-2003 respectively and were declared proclaimed offender by the trial Court. Resultantly, vide order dated 5-6-2004 the petitioners were penalized for entire surety amount of Rs,2,00,000 each to be paid within a month. The petitioners challenged the said order by filing revision applications before the learned High Court of Sindh which were dismissed vide impugned order.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have produced the accused, namely, Peroze Malik and Noor Hassan before the trial Court after hectic efforts, as such, they deserve leniency in forfeiture of surety amount. Irrespective of above, said accused have been acquitted by the trial Court.
4. Dr. Kazi Khalid, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh for the State conceded the facts and stated that since the accused named above have been produced before the trial Court, as such petitioners deserve leniency in reduction in the amount of surety.
5. Since the petitioners have produced accused, namely, Peroze Hassan and Noor Hassan before the trial Court who after trial have been acquitted, as such, on humanitarian ground, we feel appropriate to reduce the forfeited amount from Rs,two lacs to one lac each.
6. With the above modification in the forfeited amount of surety, both petitions are converted into appeal and are partly allowed.
Cited by 1 case
- Muhammad Noman Versus State 2026 PCrLJ 665