ALI MUHAMMAD THAHIM vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, THATTA and another
This criminal revision application was filed by a surety challenging an order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Thatta, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 200,000 against the surety following the abscondence of an accused person. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in imposing the full penalty amount and whether the enhancement of the penalty beyond the original surety bond amount was legally sustainable, given that the accused had regularly attended trial proceedings until the final judgment stage. The High Court observed that the accused had been compliant throughout the trial and only absconded immediately before the pronouncement of the judgment. The Court held that the trial court erred in directing the deposit of Rs. 200,000, as the original surety bond was for Rs. 100,000. Considering the surety's advanced age and the lack of deliberate fault on his part, the Court set aside the excessive penalty. The principle laid down is that while a surety is liable for the accused's appearance, the penalty imposed upon forfeiture of a bail bond must remain commensurate with the original bond amount and the circumstances of the default.
- Can a trial court impose a penalty on a surety that exceeds the original amount of the bail bond?
- Is a surety liable for the full penalty amount if the accused absconds only after attending all trial proceedings up to the final judgment stage?
- Does a court have the discretion to allow the payment of a forfeited surety bond penalty in installments?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---This revision application is filed by the applicant/surety against the order dated 15-1-2013 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thatta; in which the learned Sessions Judge has imposed full amount as penalty up to the applicant/ surety.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/surety and learned APG for the State.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant states that applicant stood surety for accused Muhammad Essa and Ramzan in the sum of Rs, 100,000 in the captioned crime; both the accused were regularly attending the trial court; trial has concluded and before pronouncement of judgment accused Ramzan slipped away from the trial Court. He further submits that, the learned Sessions Judge, Thatta directed the applicant/surety to pay the surety amount worth Rs, 200,000 within ten days, in case of failure, the same may be recovered through land revenue and directed the Mukhtiarkar to recover the penalty amount from the surety vide order dated 16-6-2012; and against the said order, a criminal miscellaneous application was again filed before the same Court, in which the applicant states that the applicant Ali Muhammad stood surety for accused Muhammad Essa and Ramzan in the sum of Rs, 100,000 each but trial court had directed the applicant to deposit Rs, 200,000 within a period of ten days, same application was dismissed vide order dated 15-1-2013. Learned counsel further contended that applicant is an old man of eighty years of age and he stood surety of the accused persons on humanitarian ground and not on a monetary ground. Learned counsel in the last has contended that, the applicant is seeking mercy of the Court and request for remit of the penalty amount or he is ready to pay Rs, 100,000 in easy instalments.
4. Learned A.P.G. Opposes the grant of revision application on the ground that applicant is bound to produce the accused on each and every date but he failed to produce the applicant. Learned A.P.G. Further supports the order of learned Sessions Judge, Thatta.
5. Having considered the respective contention and perused the material available on record.
Order dated 15-1-2013 shows that applicant stood surety of accused Muhammad Essa and Ramzan Ali in the sum of Rs, 100,000 each in the captioned crime/case but learned trial court has wrongly directed the applicant to deposit Rs, 200,000. Order dated 16-6-2012 shows that accused was attending the Court regularly, case was proceeded and it was fixed for judgment on 29-11-2012, after completing the judgment, learned trial Judge came in the Court, all the accused including (Ramzan Ali Thaheem) were present in the Court and before the judgment was pronounced, accused Ramzan Ali Thaheem slipped away from the Court. After 2/3 calls, Ramzan had not attended the Court and the judgment was postponed and the case was adjourned to 11-11-2012; bail bond of accused Ramzan was forfeited and NBWs was ordered against accused Ramzan Ali as well as notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. To surety. Reply to the show-cause notice was not furnished then the learned trial Court imposed penalty upon the applicant and directed him to pay surety amount worth Rs, 200,000 within ten days. It is very much clear that no fault on the part of surety; both the accused persons released on bail, they were regularly attending the Court up to final arguments of the case; accused Ramzan and co-accused Muhammad Essa were appearing before the trial Court before pronouncement of judgment, learned trial court has imposed penalty, and enhanced penalty amount from Rs, 100,000 to Rs, 200,000 and directed the applicant/surety to deposit the amount within ten days.
6. Keeping in view the old age of applicant/surety and of no fault on the part of the applicant/surety; applicant/surety is directed to deposit surety amount worth Rs, 100,000 (Rupees One Hundred Thousand Only) in three easy instalments; which commence as follows:-
(i) On 2-5-2013 Rs, 34,000
(ii) On 1-6-2013 Rs, 33,000
(iii) On 1-7-2013 Rs, 33,000 ' The criminal revision application is disposed of.