BASHIR AHMED Versus THE STATE
This criminal revision petition arises from an order passed by the trial court under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, forfeiting the surety bond of the petitioner, Bashir Ahmed, who stood surety for an accused who subsequently absconded and was declared a proclaimed offender. The trial court had directed the petitioner to deposit a penalty of Rs. 25,000 after reducing Rs. 5,000 from the total bond amount of Rs. 30,000. The core legal question concerns the quantum of penalty to be imposed upon a surety for the default of an accused person when the surety acted out of benevolence and the accused left the country without the surety's knowledge. The court held that while the forfeiture of the bond was justified due to the non-production of the accused, the penalty was excessively heavy given the circumstances of the case and the petitioner's poverty. Consequently, the court reduced the penalty amount to Rs. 10,000 to meet the ends of justice, establishing that mitigating circumstances regarding a surety's personal capacity and lack of complicity warrant a reduction in the penalty imposed under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
- Whether a trial court can forfeit a surety bond under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused fails to appear and is declared a proclaimed offender?
- Can the penalty imposed upon a surety for the non-production of an accused be reduced by the High Court in view of mitigating circumstances such as the surety's poverty and lack of complicity?
- Section 7, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
One Ghulam Abbas an accused of F.I.R. No.202 of 1996, registered at Police Station City Mandi Bahauddin, under section 7 of Offence of Qazi (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979) was bailed out from the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and the petitioner Bahsir Ahmad stood surety for him in the sum of Rs.30,000. The accused, thereafter, did not appear before the Court and was declared proclaimed offender and notices were issued to the petitioner, who also failed to produce the accused and ultimately vide order, dated 20‑4‑1999 the learned trial Court adopting the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. forfeited the bail bond and after lessening Rs.5,000 from the total amount of bond directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000 till 30‑4‑1999. The said order has been called in question through the instant Criminal Revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per knowledge of the petitioner, the accused after having been enlarged on bail, has gone to Saudi Arabia without informing the petitioner whose production before the Court is beyond the control of the petitioner. He, however, undertakes that as and when the accused comes to the country, he will try to produce him before the Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner is a poor man and an old one having no personal interest to escape the accused from the Court and had stood surety for him out of benevolence and that the penalty imposed is. too heavy and in several cases this Court has reduced the same to the tune of 1/4th of the total amount. The last submission is also concurred by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of State.
In these circumstances, considering the arguments of the learned counsel, I feel that if the penalty is reduced to Rs.10,000 that will be enough to meet the ends of justice. Order accordingly. Criminal Revision stands disposed of.
H.B.T./B‑28/L Order accordingly.