MULAZIM HUSSAIN vs STATE
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed by the applicant seeking a reduction in the penalty imposed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South, following the forfeiture of a surety bond. The core legal question was whether the trial court's order forfeiting the entire surety amount, due to the accused absconding after being released on bail in a murder case, was excessively harsh and warranted judicial leniency. The applicant, who had stood surety for the accused, argued that he acted on humanitarian grounds as a co-villager and without monetary benefit. The High Court, noting that the accused was charged with a heinous offence (Qatal-e-Amad) and that the applicant had failed to fulfill his legal obligation to ensure the accused's presence, upheld the trial court's decision. The court held that the application lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming that leniency in such cases encourages the abscondence of accused persons. The key principle laid down is that courts should not reduce forfeited surety amounts in serious criminal cases, as doing so undermines the integrity of the bail process and encourages abscondence.
- Can a court reduce the penalty amount forfeited from a surety when the accused absconds after being released on bail?
- Does the humanitarian ground of being a co-villager justify a reduction in the forfeited surety amount?
- Is the forfeiture of the entire surety amount appropriate in cases involving heinous offences like murder?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant seeks reduction of fine amount imposed upon surety by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South in Sessions Case No, 420/2011.
2. The facts of the case are that accused Faizan was involved in FIR No, 4/2011 PS Mehmoodabad under Section 302/34, PPC and was enlarged on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-(Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount. The applicant voluntarily stood surety and deposited saving certificates, however after release on bail accused Faizan absconded away. The applicant in pursuance of notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C. furnished reply, the trial Court being dissatisfied with the reply ordered the forfeiture of entire surety amount and it's recovery by encashment of saving certificate and deposit of amount in Government treasury vide order dated 09.5.2012 which is impugned in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that applicant had stood surety on humanitarian ground without any monitory benefits as the absconding accused was his co- villager. Learned counsel has further contended that the order of trial Court forfeiting the entire, surety amount seems to be a harsh order. He requests for reduction of penalty amount imposed by the trial Court.
4. Learned APG has opposed the application relying upon the case reported as Saeed Akhtar V/S The State (2009 PSC 236) & Ghulam Dastagir & 3 others V/S The State (PLD 2011 SC 116) and Muhammad Aslam V/S The State (2004 SCM R 211), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered the forfeiture of entire surety amount observing that reduction in surety amount increase the tradition and encourage the abscondence of accused after their release on bail.
5. Perusal of the record shows that accused Faizan was involved in a heinous offence of Qatal-e- Amad which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The applicant claims that he being co-villager furnished surety for absconding accused as such it was his liability to ensure the production of accused before the trial Court on each date of hearing for which he also executed surety bond but failed to honour the terms and conditions of his surety bond hence deserves no leniency. In view of the above facts and observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the above referred citations, there appears no merit in this application, the same is dismissed accordingly.