MUHAMMAD ALI AND Another vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioners. The petitioners had acted as sureties for an accused charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25 each. Upon the accused absconding, the bail was cancelled, and the bail bonds were ordered to be forfeited. Following the petitioners' failure to respond to a show-cause notice regarding the recovery of the bond amount, the court ordered their detention in civil prison for six months and subsequently directed the attachment and sale of their immovable property. The petitioners sought a reduction of the forfeiture amount in revision, which the High Court dismissed in limine. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the impugned order, found no legal flaw in the reasoning of the High Court. Consequently, the Court held that the circumstances did not warrant the grant of leave to appeal and dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the forfeiture and recovery proceedings initiated against the sureties.
- Can a court order the attachment and sale of a surety's immovable property upon the forfeiture of a bail bond?
- Is a surety liable for the full amount of a bail bond if the accused absconds?
- Does a High Court have the authority to dismiss a revision petition in limine regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 1-6-1982, dismissing their revision petition.
2. Muhammad A.I and Madad A.I petitioners stood surety for A.I Muhammad son of Muhammad Bakhsh who was ascused of an offence under section 302/34, P. P. C., and executed bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25, each on 25-6-1980. The said accused, however, jumped the bail and ab-- sconded. His bail was therefore, cancelled and the amount of bonds ordered to be forfeited. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners to showcause as to why the said amount should not be recovered from them but they failed to appear in the Court. Proceedings were, therefore, taken for recovery of the aforementioned amount and were also ordered to be sent to civil prison for a period of 6 months. Ultimately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed an order on 3- 5-1981, for attachment and sale of their immovable property.. The petitioners filed a revision petition before the High Court for reduction of the amount. The revision was, however, dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned order.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned order.
We find no flaw in the reasons recorded by the learned Judge in Chamber while dismissing the petitioners' revi--sion petition and do not, therefore, consider this to be a fit case for grant of leave.
The petition is consequently dismissed.