Haji Abro vs The State
This criminal revision application was brought by a surety challenging the trial court's order dated 24.03.2011, which forfeited the entire bail bond of Rs. 300,000/- under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following the abscondence of an accused indicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought a moderate reduction of the penalty on the grounds of poverty, absence of monetary benefit or mala fides, and the accused's abscondence due to mortal enmity, to which the State raised no objection. The High Court modified the trial court's order, reducing the penalty to Rs. 200,000/-. The Court held that while courts possess the legal authority to forfeit the entire bond amount, imposing the full penalty without establishing mala fides or financial gain is unjustified. Courts must strike a balance between undue severity and undue leniency, taking into account the nature of the offence, the surety's financial capacity, and their efforts to produce the accused.
- Can the full penalty on a forfeited surety bond be imposed under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without inquiring into the surety's mala fides, carelessness, or personal gain?
- What factors must a court consider when determining the quantum of fine or forfeiture to impose upon a defaulting surety under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an appellate or revisional court can moderately reduce the amount of a forfeited bail bond on humanitarian and financial grounds when the State records no objection?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. Applicant/surety Haji Abro through this criminal revision application has challenged the order dated 24.3.2011 passed by the learned V-Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, in Sessions Case No.114/2002, re State v/s Ghulam Asghar & others.
2. Concise facts leading to the filing of the instant criminal revision application are that applicant Haji Abro stood surety for accused Manzoor Junejo on 13.03.2006. Bail was granted to the accused by the trial Court on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (Three Lac) and P.R bond in the like amount in crime No.16/2002, registered at Police Station Badeh, under Sections 302, PPC.
3. After grant of bail to accused, applicant stood surety, accused was released on bail and thereafter absconded away. Surety could not produce the accused. Notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C was issued to the surety. Surety failed to produce the accused. Learned V- Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana forfeited the entire bond of surety and imposed full fine amount of Rs.300,000/- (Three Lac), with direction to deposit the same within one month and in case of default the same shall be recovered according to law. Above order of trial Court is impugned before this Court.
4. At the very outset, learned Counsel for the applicant/surety instead of arguing this revision application on merits requested for moderate reduction in the forfeiture amount of surety on the grounds that applicant had stood surety on humanitarian grounds and had gained no monetary benefit in this regard. Learned advocate for the applicant further submitted that all the possible efforts have been made by the surety to produce the accused, but accused has absconded away due to fear of his death on account of murderous enmity with his opponents. It is further submitted that surety is a poor person and has large family having no sufficient income source.
5. Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State Counsel, recorded no objection if fine amount imposed upon surety by the trial Court is reduced to some reasonable extent.
6. I have carefully heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.
7. In my considered opinion, imposing whole fine upon the surety without any proof of malafide or personal gain was not justified in this case. No doubt, there is no legal embargo that amount of bail bond in full cannot be forfeited, but still approach of the Court should be dynamic and progressive oriented while imposing the entire fine upon the surety. Nature of the offence, efforts made by the surety to produce the accused and financial position of surety may be taken into consideration while passing orders. In this case the learned Counsel has contended that the surety has made all possible efforts to produce the accused, who has absconded away due to murderous enmity.
8. Balance should be kept between undue severity and undue leniency at the time of passing the order. Undue severity, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. It has not been demonstrated in the present case as to what inquiry if any has been made before the trial Court in assessing the surety's laxity/carelessness or otherwise in his efforts to produce the accused.
9. Thus, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, order of the trial Court dated 24.3.2011 is modified and fine of Rs.300,000/- (Three Lac) is reduced to Rs.200,000/- (Two Lac). This criminal revision application is disposed of in above terms. The surety shall deposit Rs.200,000/- (Two Lac) before the trial Court within the period of one month, else the same shall be recovered by the trial Court in accordance with law.