JAMEEL AHMED vs THE STATE and another
This revision application arises from a criminal matter where the applicant, having stood surety for an accused who subsequently absconded, challenged an order forfeiting his surety bond. The core legal question was whether the forfeiture of the surety amount remained justifiable after the trial court acquitted the absconding accused in absentia. The applicant further highlighted personal grievances, alleging that the accused had coerced him and his daughter into familial relations and continued to threaten them. The Court, upon reviewing the circumstances, noted that the primary accused had been acquitted by the trial court in absentia. Consequently, the Court held that the order of forfeiture was harsh and set it aside. Furthermore, the Court exercised its authority to protect the applicant and his daughter, directing the police to lodge an F.I.R. based on their statements and to ensure their safety from the accused. The principle established is that the forfeiture of a surety bond becomes inequitable and liable to be set aside when the underlying criminal proceedings against the accused have concluded in an acquittal, even if rendered in absentia.
- Can a surety bond forfeiture order be set aside if the accused is subsequently acquitted in absentia?
- Does the acquittal of an accused in absentia render the forfeiture of a surety bond harsh or inequitable?
ORDER
1. ' The applicant, present in Court, states that he stood surety for accused Mohiuddin alias Jameel alias Baba son of Zaheeruddin on humanitarian ground without monitory consideration, whereafter the said accused made his life miserable and has compelled him to marry with his daughter namely Ambreen who is also present in Court.. He also states that with great difficulty his daughter has obtained Khula. He further states that during the pendency of the trial accused Mohiuddin absconded away and the notices were issued, whereafter the surety amount was forfeited. On application the forfeited amount was reduced from Rs,3,00,000 to Rs,2,00,000 against which the present revision application has been filed.
2. ' We had directed the DIG concerned to procure the attendance of accused Mohiuddin. Now DSP Maqsood Ahmed is present in Court and states that he could not locate the said accused. The accused has been acquitted by the trial Court in absentia. The applicant and his daughter, present in Court, on one hand pray for setting aside the impugned order and on the other hand they pray for taking action against Mohiuddin who made their lives miserable and kept on extending threats.
3. We direct the DSP, present in Court, to lodge the F.I.R. After recording statement of the applicant as well as his daughter today and take action against Mohiuddin in accordance with law and ensure that no harm is caused either to the applicant or his daughter Ambreen.
4. ' Since the accused Mohiuddin has been acquitted by the trial Court in absentia, the impugned order is a harsh order and accordingly set aside.
5. ' Present Revision application is disposed of in the abomterms.