ZULFIQAR ALI Versus THE STATE
This criminal revision petition under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenges the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge confiscating the petitioner's surety bond and directing him to pay the surety amount due to the accused's absence. The core legal question is whether a surety bond can be forfeited and the surety penalized without issuing a prior notice and following the mandatory procedure under the law. The Lahore High Court held that the impugned order was passed in a slipshod manner without issuing the requisite notice under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby condemning the petitioner unheard. Consequently, the court set aside the order and allowed the petition, while clarifying that the trial court remains at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. The key principle laid down is that mandatory procedural requirements, including the issuance of notice to a surety, must be strictly observed prior to the forfeiture of a surety bond.
- Can a surety bond be forfeited without issuing a notice under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether an order confiscating a surety bond passed without following proper procedure is sustainable in law?
- Does a trial court have the power to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a previous forfeiture order is set aside for procedural irregularity?
- Section 435, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
Through this petition under sections 435/ 439; Cr.P.C. petitioner has challenged the order dated 18-10-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge by which the surety bond was confiscated and the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of the surety bond.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Allah Ditta one of the accused in case F.I.R. No.331 of 2001 registered under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C. at Police Station Qabula Sharif, District Pakpattan Sharif was granted bail and the petitioner stood surety while submitting bail bonds amounting to Rs.1,00,000. during the trial he was absented on 18-10-2002 wherefor his bail was cancelled and after confiscating of surety bonds, notice was issued to the petitioner for deposit of the total surety amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that said Allah Ditta had been appearing on each and every date of hearing during the trial, but due to the misunderstanding could not appear on 18-10-2002 and subsequently he has also been allowed bail before arrest., According to the learned counsel the impugned order having not been passed after following the proper procedure is liable to be set aside.
4. Nobody is present to oppose this petition on behalf of the State.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned order, it is clear that no notice was issued to the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. before the forfeiture of the surety bond and surety bond has been forfeited in a slipshod manner. The proper procedure has not been followed before the passing of the impugned order and the petitioner was condemned unheard. Hence, the order dated 18-10-2002 is set aside by accepting this petition. However, the learned trial Court can initiate the proceedings against the petitioner by following the proper procedure as required under section 514, Cr.P.C.
H.B.T./Z-166/L Petition allowed.