LIAQAT ALI SUNANI vs The STATE
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero, imposing a penalty of Rs. 75,000 upon the applicant, who stood surety for an accused person. The accused had remained absent from the trial court on a single date of hearing but appeared voluntarily on the subsequent date. The trial court, despite the accused's voluntary appearance, imposed the full surety amount as a penalty on the surety. The High Court observed that the accused's absence was limited to one day and did not constitute prolonged absconsion. Furthermore, there was no evidence suggesting the surety was instrumental in the accused's disappearance or that the surety failed to produce the accused when required. The Court held that the imposition of the full penalty was unjustified and harsh under the circumstances. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, setting aside the trial court's order and reducing the penalty amount to Rs. 15,000, to be deposited within one month, while noting that the accused had already faced the consequences of his absence by being remanded to jail.
- Whether a trial court is justified in imposing the full penalty of a surety bond when an accused is absent for only a single date of hearing?
- Can a penalty imposed on a surety be reduced if the accused appears voluntarily before the trial court?
- Does the absence of an accused on a single date of hearing warrant the forfeiture of the entire surety amount?
- Section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Accused Mehboob-ul-Haque, facing charge in Crime No,274/2009 of Police Station Ratodero, under section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 and 342, P.P.C., was released on bail on the surety of applicant Liaquat Ali Sunani in the sum of Rs,75,000.
2. The accused jumped bail and remained absent from the trial Court on 12-8-2013. After service of notice, the applicant appeared before the trial Court and sought time to produce the accused, however. In the meantime the accused put in appearance before the trial Court and moved application for condonation of his absence. The learned trial Court i,e,, Additional Sessions Judge, Ratodero in 'spite of appearance of accused voluntarily just on the next date, imposed penalty of full amount of surety viz., Rs,75,000 upon the applicant vide order dated 26-8-2013 and gave him period of one month for depositing the amount. Applicant has challenged the said order through the instant revision application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the accused had remained absent only on a date of hearing i,e,, 12-8-2013 and on the next date he appeared before the trial Court voluntarily, therefore, there was no justification for imposing any penalty upon the applicant.
4. On the other hand, learned Asst. Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the instant revision application and while supporting the impugned order he contended that the learned trial Court after repudiating the plea of the accused for his absence on the date of hearing has rightly imposed full amount of surety upon the applicant, which does not call for interference.
5. I have considered the submissions of both the learned Counsel and have examined the record.
6. It is an admitted fact that the accused remained absent from the Court only on single date of hearing i,e,, 12-8-2013 and on the next date he appeared before the trial Court voluntarily without service of N.B.W. Etc. And he was remanded to jail and was again released on bail. It appears that the learned trial Court has not properly considered this fact. This is not a case of prolonged absconsion of the accused. The absence of the accused on a single date of hearing could be condoned even on humanitarian ground, but the learned trial Court punished the accused by sending him to jail on his appearance on the next date of hearing and subsequently he was again released on bail. There does not appear any material on record to show that the applicant/surety was instrumental in causing disappearance of the accused. There is also nothing on record to show that the applicant failed to produce the accused despite grant of time by the trial Court. In such circumstances, there was no justification for passing such a harsh order against the applicant.
7. Accordingly, by taking lenient view, the penalty amount of Rs,75000 (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand) imposed by the learned trial Court upon the applicant is reduced to Rs,15000 (Rupees Fifteen Thousand), which shall be deposited by him within a period of one month from today before the trial Court. In case of failure, the trial Court shall adopt the procedure for recovery of the same from the applicant in accordance with law.