ABDUL REHMAN Versus State
This criminal petition challenges the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the petitioner, as a surety for an accused, was burdened to pay the entire surety amount of Rs. 50,000 following the non-appearance of the accused. The core legal question was whether the surety bond forfeiture order could be passed ex parte without providing a proper opportunity of hearing and considering the circumstances of the accused's non-appearance. The Lahore High Court held that since the impugned order was passed ex parte without considering the petitioner's point of view or providing a due hearing, the order was unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge for rehearing after affording a proper hearing to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that an order forfeiting a surety bond and imposing a penalty must not be passed ex parte without giving the surety a proper opportunity of being heard and examining the true facts of the case.
- Can a surety bond forfeiture order be passed ex parte against a surety without granting a proper hearing?
- What is the legal effect of failing to consider the surety's point of view regarding the non-appearance of an accused?
- Whether a matter regarding the forfeiture of a surety amount should be remanded when passed without proper adjudication of true facts?
- Section 342, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 337-H(ii), Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code
ORDER
SH. ABDUL RASHID, J .---Through this petition the order, dated 30-10-2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in case F.I.R. No.279/05, dated 27-12-2005 under sections 3421379/337-H(ii)/109/148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, City Renala Khurd, District Okara, whereby, the petitioner surety has been burdened to pay entire surety amount of Rs.50,000 has been assailed. The petitioner stood surety for Muhammad Atif accused in the subject case F.I.R. and submitted bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 for appearance of the accused before the learned Court on each and every date. On 7-1-2006 the accused did not appear before the trial Court and consequently the impugned order had been passed.
2. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that due to compromise between the complainant and the accused for whom the petitioner stood surety the case was cancelled and due to said misunderstanding the accused did not appear and the learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order did not issue proper notice to the petitioner and did not collect the true facts on the file for proper adjudication of this case.
3. The impugned order reveals that it had been passed ex parte and the petitioner's point of view has not been considered, therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge for rehearing the case after giving due hearing to the petitioner.
H.B.T./A-132/L ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.