ABDUL QAYYUM Versus State
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- The petitioner feels aggrieved of order dated 7.6.2013, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska (Sialkot) inflicted penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on him under section 514, Cr.P.C. and directed him to deposit it within a week's time.
2. Succinctly speaking, the petitioner stood surety for Riaz Ahmad, an accused of case-FIR No.479/11, registered on 1.11.2011 for offences under sections 302/34, 109, P.P.C. at police station Satra (Sialkot) and executed a bond on his behalf on 25.4.2013, after he was granted ad interim bail before arrest vide order dated 25.4.2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska till 29.4.2013, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the said court. An attested copy of the bail bond is available on the record, which entailed an undertaking that the surety (petitioner) would be bound to produce the accused before the court on 29.4.2013 and in between as well, whenever the police would so require of him. The accused appeared before the court on 29.4.2013 and case was adjourned to 3.5.2013 as investigation of the case could not be finalized by the investigating officer. The matter was further adjourned on 3.5.2013 as learned counsel for the accused was not available for some personal reason. Next date was fixed as 6.5.2013. The accused got absent on 6.5.2013 due to which his bail plea was rejected, bail bonds forfeited and the surety (petitioner) was ordered to be proceeded against under section 514, Cr.P.C. It was on 7.6.2013 that penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. double the amount of ad-interim bail order, was imposed upon him by the said court. Hence, the instant petition.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner was under an obligation to produce the accused only upto 29.4.2013 or during the interregnum before the court or the investigating officer as the situation so warranted; he was in no way responsible for producing the accused thereafter, unless so expressly directed by the learned court seized with the matter, hence, he could not be proceeded against under section 514, Cr.P.C. nor burdened with any penalty for absence of the accused on any subsequent date after 29.4.2013. In fortification of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on Sardar Muhammad v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 236).
4. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab looked least perturbed by the peculiar nature of the impugned order and submitted that the petitioner's liability to produce the accused could validly be extended to subsequent dates of hearing till final decision of his application for bail before arrest. He could not, however, meet the objection qua burdening the petitioner by a penalty, which was double the amount, mentioned in order dated 25.4.2013.
5. From its tenor, the impugned order not only looks unsustainable, but also bizarre in nature. The petitioner apparently entered into a contract with the sessions court concerned to produce the accused till certain period of time and inadvertently undertook to pay the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/-, if the accused absented himself on the day fixed, as mentioned in the surety bond. Strange enough, the petitioner furnished surety bond of Rs.1,00,000/- as against half of the amount required vide order dated 25.4.2013, which was attested by the court probably without looking at the relevant order. This casualness did not finish here, rather it enveloped the impugned order as well, as petitioner was directed to pay "full penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lac)" within a week's time. It was a novel way of punishing the surety, for, his liability turned double the amount as incorporated in ad-interim bail granting order. The surety/petitioner could not be held responsible for presence of the accused a day longer than the date mentioned in the bail bond. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska has certainly erred in making the petitioner liable for non- appearance of the accused on the subsequent dates after 29.4.2013. In such a situation, the order of forfeiture of surety bond and for depositing Rs.1,00,000/- in the treasury passed by the learned sessions court on 7.6.2013 is not sustainable and is, therefore, set aside.
6. While dealing with an identical situation, this court observed in Sardar Muhammad's case (supra) that "generally printed forms of surety bonds are submitted by the accused and their sureties at the time of their admission to bail. These printed forms which are available in the market are accepted mechanically without examining the entries made therein. The Courts and authorities accepting these forms should ensure that these bonds clearly specify the dates, including extended dates for interim bails or proceedings for which surety should be made liable for appearance of the accused." These observations still hold good and would continue to be so, till proposed/suggested entries are duly made an integral part of the bail bonds.
7. This revision petition is accepted accordingly.
JK/A-52/L Revision accepted.