2020 PCrLJN 202

MUHAMMAD BASHIR Versus ROBKAR ADALAT ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT OF CRIMINAL JURISDICTION SEHNSA

Citation2020 PCrLJN 202

CourtHigh Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Judge(s)Chaudhary Khalid Yousaf

ORDER

1. CHAUDHARY KHALID YOUSAF, J .---The captioned revision petition has been directed against the order passed by the Additional District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Sehnsa, dated 29.12.2018, whereby, surety-petitioner herein; was proceeded under section 514, Cr.P.C. and directed to deposit Rs.500000/- in government treasury within 15 days.

2. Precise facts of the instant case are that a case under sections 109, 147, 148, 149, 302, 324, 337/A-1, 337/F-3, 337/F-4, 341, A.P.C. and 13,20/65 was registered at Police Station Sehnsa on 28.05.2012 and the accused, Muhammad Qasim, was apprehended by the police on 13.06.2012. After dismissal of his bail application by the trial court, the bail was granted to him by this Court on 18.01.2013, whereby, Muhammad Bashir present petitioner stood surety of the accused and furnished the surety in sum of Rs.500000/-. Thereafter, during trial the accused, Muhammad Qasim, absconded who proceeded under section 512, Cr.P.C. The trial Court initiated the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. against the present petitioner, Muhammad Bashir and finally ordered the surety to deposit the surety amount Rs.500000/- in the government treasury vide order dated 27.05.2019; hence, this revision petition.

3. Chaudhary Manzoor Ahmed Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that trial court fell in grave error of law while passing the impugned order as no surety was furnished before the trial court. Learned counsel further contended that forfeiting of surety bond which was not furnished before the trial Court, is not sustainable. Learned counsel forcefully argued that under section 514, Cr.P.C. the court where a bond of appearance has been furnished alone has jurisdiction to forfeit the bond and no other Court has jurisdiction to forfeit the same. He argued next that the bond was executed by the present petitioner before this Court therefore, the trial Court is not competent to initiate proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. against him. Learned counsel lastly prayed that by accepting the revision petition the order passed by the court below may be set aside.

4. Ejaz Ahmed Bhatti, A.A.G appearing on behalf of the State vehemently contended that Muhammad Bashir stood surety of the accused to secure his attendance before the trial court, he was bound to produce the accused before the trial Court on each and every date but he failed to produce the accused before the court, therefore, the trial court has rightly passed the impugned order which does not need any interference by this Court and lastly, prayed for dismissal of appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.A.G and gone through the impugned order passed by the Court below.

6. In the present case the accused Muhammad Qasim was granted bail by this Court on 18.01.2013 and directed to furnish the bail bond in sum of Rs.500000/- whereby, Muhammad Bashir, petitioner herein, stood surety and furnished the bail bond before this Court. Thereafter, the accused was directed by the trial Court to furnish fresh bond before it but the accused instead of furnishing the same, opted to abscond. Thereupon, robkar was instituted against the surety on 05.07.2018 and the trial court initiated proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. against the surety/petitioner.

7. The basic object of obtaining bail bond is to secure the attendance of the accused in court, where he is called upon and in case of failure to appear some coercive measures may be taken against him including forfeiture of bond, attachment, sale of property of the surety etc. Furnishing of bail bond before High Court/Shariat Appellate Bench, with condition that surety is bound to produce the accused before Court, the word "Court" means the Court where the case is being tried.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the argument that when an accused executes a bond to appear before a particular Court it is that Court alone has jurisdiction to forfeit the same. If the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner/surety is accepted then appearance of accused-person before the trial court will not be secured and very object of the section 514, Cr.P.C. would be defeated. When a superior court takes bond of an accused for appearance before the court means the trial court where he has to appear after getting bail. My this view finds support from case titled "Hubdar Chandio v. State" [1997 PCr.LJ 1597]. The relevant portion is usefully reproduced as under;-

9. ".....It is clearly stipulated that when a bond is for appearance of a person before a particular Court, it is only that Court which can proceed against the sureties not the Court granting bail or the Court before whom the bond is furnished. I am, therefore, of the view that when a accused person granted bail by the High Court and having furnished a bond for his appearance before the trial court, does not appear before the trial Court without justification, the trial Court has ample powers to proceed against him in terms of the bond, cause his arrest upon recording his satisfaction as to forfeiture of the bond even proceed against the surety."

10. In view of the above observations finding no force in this revision petition, same is hereby dismissed.

11. SA/13/HC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.