SHER RAHMAN and others vs The STATE
The petitioners filed a criminal revision petition against an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Charsadda, forfeiting their bail bonds to the extent of Rs. 50,000 each after the accused for whom they stood surety absconded during trial following his involvement in a subsequent murder case. The core legal question was whether the forfeiture of surety bonds was justified and proportionate under the circumstances where the sureties had initially fulfilled their obligation of producing the accused for trial. The Peshawar High Court held that while sureties bear responsibilities, courts must maintain a balance between undue leniency and undue severity, considering the sureties' compliance prior to the subsequent incident and their poor financial status as daily wage laborers and pensioners. The Court reduced the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 each, laying down the principle that humanitarian aspects, the financial condition of sureties, and the specific circumstances of an accused's subsequent abscondance must be factored into the forfeiture of surety bonds.
- Whether the forfeiture of surety bonds is justified when the accused absconds due to involvement in a subsequent criminal case?
- How should courts balance undue leniency and undue severity when determining the extent of surety bond forfeiture?
- Can the financial status of sureties be considered while mitigating the penalty for breach of surety bonds?
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 382, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 411, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Petitioners, who stood sureties for the accused Suleman have filed this Criminal Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 4-5-2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Charsadda in case F.I.R. No,1683 dated 19-12-2008 under section 324/382/411, P.P.C. Police Station, Serdheri whereby the bail bonds of Rs,80,000 were forfeited to the extent of Rs,50,000 each, hence this criminal revision petition.
' Arguments heard and record perused.
2. Both the petitioners stood surety for producing accused Suleman who was charged and arrested in an attempted murder and dacoity case, bail was granted to the said accused on compromise basis. The record shows that both the petiti6ners produced the said accused Suleman for the purpose of trial and during the trial of case F.I.R. No,1683. Dated 19-12-2008 the accused Suleman committed murder of his co-accused and thus absconded. The petitioners fulfilled their obligations and produced Suleman for a trial in case F.I.R. No,1683 dated 19-12-2008 but due to F.I.R.
No,596 dated 23-11-2011 under section 302/34, P.P.C. The accused absconded himself, therefore, the petitioners seem to be helpless to that extent.
3. .No doubt a trend has been developed that accused in heinous offences obtained bail and thereafter bounces the same in the anticipation that the court will take lenient view in confiscation- of the surety amount but in this particular case the situation is different all together. The intention of the petitioners is quite clear, they produced Suleman accused, who was attending the court and the trial was under process when another F.I.R. Was registered in which the said accused Suleman absconded.
4. I have seen the identity cards of the petitioners as well as the address of the accused given in F.I.R. No,596 dated 23-11-2011 which are one and the same and in our society the humanitarian aspects do require a help in the time of need. People come forward to stand security for accused out of ordinary fellow feeling and invariably without any ambition for gain of benefit, but for mere benevolence. Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who may be in default, a judicial mind is supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency, which may be leading to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice. Whereas, on the other hand, undue severity may lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. While maintaining this balance, the Courts are required to hold some sort of balance while determining to what extent a bend is to be forfeited.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners undertook the responsibilities to produce the accused before the court when required by submitting the bonds but the said responsibility was fulfilled the moment accused Suleman started attending the court/trial, thus, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of abscondance of the accused in another murder case registered vide F.I.R. No,596 dated 23-11-2011 and the financial status of the petitioners, which shows that petitioner No,
1. Is a daily wages laborer while petitioner No,2 is a retired low paid pensioner, the amount of Rs,50,000 seems to be two harsh.
6. Under the circumstances of this case, I reduce the amount of tawan from Rs, 50,000 to Rs,10,000 each to be paid by the petitioners before the lower forum on the next date of hearing. Anyway, the petitioners are directed to continue making efforts for the production of the accused for whom they stood as surety and if they produced him in a month time, the trial Court is advised to further reduce to half of the forfeited amount, mentioned above. This criminal revision petition is .Allowed and disposed of accordingly.