GHULAM MUHAMMAD vs The STATE
This criminal revision application was filed by a surety against an order of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, imposing a penalty of Rs. 500,000 following the forfeiture of his surety bond under Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The accused had jumped bail and was impersonated in the trial court. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to leniency or a reduction of the forfeited penalty considering his efforts to apprehend the accused and the subsequent acquittal of the accused. The High Court observed that there was no carelessness on the surety's part, as he assisted in getting the accused apprehended and handed over to the police, and noted that the accused was ultimately acquitted by the trial court. The Court held that these mitigating circumstances warranted leniency. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application in part, reducing the fine from Rs. 500,000 to Rs. 250,000, payable within one month.
- Can the penalty imposed upon a surety under Section 514 Cr.P.C. be reduced if the surety actively assisted in the apprehension of the absconding accused?
- Does the subsequent acquittal of an accused constitute a relevant factor when determining the quantum of fine/penalty to be recovered from a surety upon forfeiture of a bond?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(iv), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---This criminal revision application has been directed by the applicant/surety Ghulam Muhammad Khoso against the Order dated 19-12-2013, passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, whereby he has fined him to pay Rs.500,000 as penalty of the surety bond, which he had executed and submitted in the trial Court for production of accused Abdul Jabbar on each and every date of hearing.
2. The facts leading to filing instant criminal revision application are that, accused Abdul Jabbar was booked in crime No.05/2007 of P.S. RD-44, registered under sections 302, 324, 337-F(iv), 148, 149, P.P.C. Subsequently, he was granted bail, subject e applicant stood surety in the sum of Rs.
3. 500,000. The applicant stood surety for said accused before learned trial Court and executed such bond. It is further revealed, that accused Abdul Jabbar remained absent from the learned trial Court and he was impersonated by one Abdul Fatah in trial Court, therefore the trial Court forfeited the surety bond and the applicant was issued notice under section 514 Cr.P.C. who filed its reply, and ultimately the learned trial Court passed the impugned Order.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that as and when applicant came to known that the accused has absented himself from the trial Court, he started searching for him and ultimately suceeded to get him apprehended and produced the accused at concerned police station, but the incharge duty officer of the police station did not mention this fact that accused has been produced by the surety, but he written do the mashirnama that, the accused has voluntarily appeared. Learned counsel further contended that, thereafter the accused was produced before the trial Court and ultimately he stands acquitted from the charge vide judgment dated 19-12-2013, and on the same date, i.e. 19-12-2013, the applicant has been fined. Per learned counsel the impugned Order passed by learned trial Court is very harsh, because in view of the above factual position the applicant deserved some leniency. Lastly, he prayed for setting aside of the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, learned D.P.G. Supported the impugned Order, and opposed grant of instant criminal revision application.
6. It appears that there is no careless on the part of applicant/ surety in his efforts to produce the accused before the trial Court, as according to him, he succeeded in his efforts; got the accused apprehended and produced him before the concerned police, but the police did not mention such fact in the mashirnama of arrest; this contention of the surety has some weight and appears to be true, because of the reason that, once if the accused jumps the bail with a view to abscond, then it is not understandable why he voluntarily surrenders before police station, therefore, the applicant deserves some leniency. Another important aspect of the case is that, after his production before the trial Court, the accused has been acquitted of the charge.
7. In view of the above position, instant application stands allowed to the extent that the amount of fine is reduced from Rs.500,000 to Rs.2,50,000, which shall be deposited by the applicant/ surety with the trial Court within the period of one month.