ZESHAN KAZMI Versus THE STATE
This matter arose from a case concerning the forfeiture of a surety bond following the abscondence of an accused person. The core legal question before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether the full amount of a surety bond could be forfeited, or whether courts were bound by precedent to forfeit only a fraction of the bond amount. The Supreme Court held that there is no statutory or legal prohibition against forfeiting the full amount of a surety bond if the circumstances of the case so warrant. The Court clarified that the determination of what portion of a surety bond should be forfeited depends entirely on the specific facts and circumstances of each case, within the discretion of the court. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle established in Dildar v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47), which balances leniency to encourage sureties with severity to prevent the abuse of justice, noting that this principle remains valid and does not prescribe a rigid mathematical yardstick for forfeiture.
- Is there any legal prohibition against the forfeiture of the full amount of a surety bond when an accused person absconds?
- How should a court determine what portion of a surety bond is to be forfeited in a particular case?
- Does the precedent in Dildar v. The State establish a fixed mathematical yardstick or percentage for the forfeiture of surety bonds?
ORDER
1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---I agree with the conclusion of my learned brothers that in the circumstances of the case full amount of surety bond should be forfeited. I am also in agreement with the proposition that there is no law prohibiting forfeiture of the full amount of surety bond if the circumstances of the case so required. What portion of the amount of a surety bond is to be forfeited in a particular case, depends entirely on the circumstances of that case. However, in my humble opinion, the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47 that "a balance has to be held between undue leniency, which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue severity, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward" does not require any modification because of the passage of more than three decades from the date the judgment. was delivered or because of down hill slide in moral values all around since then or on account of increase in the incidents of accused jumping the bail after they are allowed bail by the Courts. The forfeiture of 1/5th portion of the amount of surety bond directed by the Court in Dildar's case, supra, was not the ratio of that case. Dildar's case did not lay down any yardstick for forfeiture of amount of surety bond in the event of abscondence of an accused but left it entirely, to the discretion of the Court, to be exercised keeping in view the circumstances of the case. The principle laid down in Dildar's case has been followed consistently and the judgments referred by my learned brothers in this judgment did, not proceed on any contrary view.
2. Subject to the above observations, in the facts and circumstances of the present case which are stated in full detail in the judgment of my learned brothers, I direct forfeiture of full amount of surety bond in the manner mentioned in the judgment of my learned brothers.
3. M.B.A./Z-226/S order accordingly
Cited by 6 cases
- ZULFIQAR ALI alias BILLA vs THE STATE 2006 YLR 1056
- CHIBHAR vs THE STATE 2004 MLD 1120
- Syed ZEESHAN HUSSAIN KAZMI vs THE STATE and 3 others 2000 P Cr. L J 645
- SHER ALI and anothers vs THE STATE 2000 P Cr. L J 94
- IMTIAZ AHMED and anothers vs THE STATE 1997 PLD Supreme Court 545
- KALEEM BAIG Versus State 2023 MLD 1095