ABDUL LATIF Versus State
This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the trial court forfeiting a bail bond and imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000 on the petitioner, who stood surety for an accused in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the surety remains liable for the full penalty amount when the accused appeared in court earlier on the day of the order but absented himself at the crucial moment of the order's announcement. The Court held that a surety undertakes the responsibility to ensure the accused's presence in every eventuality, including the final announcement of bail orders. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was deemed lawful. However, considering that the main case had subsequently ended in a compromise and the accused was acquitted, the Court exercised leniency. The key principle laid down is that a surety's obligation persists until the court proceedings for the day are concluded, and mere appearance at an earlier time does not absolve the surety if the accused defaults at the time of the order.
- Does the appearance of an accused in court earlier on the day of an order absolve the surety if the accused is absent when the order is announced?
- Is a surety liable for the full amount of the bail bond if the accused defaults at the time of the announcement of the bail order?
- Can a court reduce the penalty imposed under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the main case has ended in a compromise?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SAGHIR AHMAD, J.--- The petitioner stood surety and submitted bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 for Muhammad Naveed accused of case F.I.R. No.299 Police Station Liaqatpur, District Rahim Yar Khan at the time when said accused was allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned trial Court. It so happened that subsequently before confirmation of his bail, the accused absented himself, as a result whereof, proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C., were initiated against the present petitioner, which ultimately ended in forfeiture of his bond and imposition of penalty of Rs.30,000 i.e, full amount of the bond vide impugned order, dated 19-9-2005.
2. Through the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the above order of the learned trial Court on the ground that accused had been appearing before the learned trial Court on each and every date of hearing and even had appeared on the day when arguments were heard and case was kept pending for announcement of orders, it was for this reason that accused had gone to fetch his learned counsel and in his absence the application was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is thus, contended that by appearance of the accused even on the last date of hearing, the petitioner stood absolved of his duty, as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside, which even otherwise, is quite harsh.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The above contention of the learned counsel is substantiated by the impugned order itself, where it is specifically mentioned that accused had appeared in the early hours of the day but escaped when the order was going to be announced. At the same time, mere appearance of the accused at one point of time on the last date would not mean that the surety stood absolved of his responsibility. When someone becomes surety, he as a matter of fact, undertakes that the accused for whom he is submitting bond, shall surrender himself before the Court in every eventuality irrespective of the fact that his bail application is dismissed on merits or is allowed otherwise. Thus, where the accused defaulted in appearance at the last crucial moment i.e. announcement of the order, the petitioner/surety would become liable in terms of the bail bond. In these circumstances, initiation of proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C., were quite in accordance with law. However, it is evident from the available record that subsequently, the trial of the main case has ended in compromise and the accused therein have been acquitted. Therefore, by taking a lenient view, while maintaining the impugned order, dated 17-11-2005 the amount of penalty of Rs.30,000 is reduced to Rs.15,000 to be deposited by the petitioner in the Government treasury within a period of fortnight from today, failing which the law shall take its own course.
N.H.Q./A-261/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Penalty reduced.