ATTA MUHAMMAD vs STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges the orders of the trial court forfeiting a bail bond and initiating recovery proceedings against the petitioner, who stood surety for an accused charged under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The accused subsequently jumped bail and was declared a proclaimed offender, leading the trial court to forfeit the petitioner's bail bond of Rs. 200,000. The petitioner, an elderly and ailing individual, contended that he acted on humanitarian grounds without monetary gain and requested a reduction in the penalty. The High Court considered the petitioner's age, health, and lack of pecuniary interest in the suretyship. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offence, the Court held that the imposition of the full penalty was excessively harsh under the circumstances. Consequently, the Court accepted the revision petition in part, reducing the penalty amount from Rs. 200,000 to Rs. 30,000, while stipulating that failure to pay this reduced amount within a fortnight would result in recovery through coercive measures. The judgment emphasizes judicial discretion in mitigating surety penalties based on the personal circumstances of the surety.
- Can a court reduce the penalty amount of a forfeited bail bond based on the personal circumstances of the surety?
- Is the forfeiture of a bail bond mandatory when an accused jumps bail?
- Does the absence of monetary gain by a surety constitute a valid ground for mitigating the penalty imposed upon bond forfeiture?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner Atta Muhammad s/o Muhammad Zaman Khan stood surety for the accused Alamgir in case FIR No, 326/2008 registered at Police Station Saddar Kehror Pacca District Lodhran under Sections 302, 34 PPC by filing his bail-bond to the tune of Rs,200,000/-. The accused Alamgir, however, jumped the bail during the trial and he was declared a proclaimed offender. Vide order dated 06.05.2010, the learned trial Court/the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca forfeited the bail-bond whereafter proceedings for the recovery of the forfeited amount of rupees two Lac were started. On 02.10.2011, an order was passed for issuing a non-bail-able warrant of arrest against the surety/petitioner and the report of the DDOR regarding the auction of the property of the petitioner was also called for.
2. The petitioner through this criminal revision petition has assailed the order dated 06.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeiting the bail-bond as well as the order dated 02.10.2010, mentioned supra.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner have contended that the petitioner had stood surety for the accused Alamgir on humanitarian grounds when he was assured that the accused would never absent but subsequently the accused had jumped the bail and in-spite of his best efforts, the surety could not find out the accused. It is contended that the petitioner is quite an old/ailing person who cannot pay the forfeited amount of Rs, 200,000/-. The learned counsel have prayed for the reduction of the penalty amount.
4. Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the petition maintaining that the petitioner had stood surety for an accused in a heinous offence and the said accused after jumping the bail is still absconding.
5. The surety/petitioner has appeared today. He is quite an old man and he also appears to be ailing. Reports are already there on the record that he is seriously ill. Since, the petitioner appears to have stood surety not for any monetary gain but out of benevolence, therefore, the ordering of the recovery of the full surety amount i,e, Rs, 200,000/- is quite harsh, hence, while accepting this revision petition partly the amount of penalty of Rs, 200,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court is reduced to Rs, 30,000/- which if not paid by the petitioner in the learned trial Court within a fortnight, shall be recoverable through coercive measures.