JAMROZ KHAN vs THE STATE
Jamroz Khan sought leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order dismissing his criminal revision against the forfeiture of his surety bond. The petitioner had stood surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000 for one Mushtaq Ahmad, accused under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, who subsequently disappeared and failed to surrender. Consequently, notice under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was issued, resulting in the forfeiture of the surety bond. The core legal question was whether leniency should be shown in reducing the forfeiture of the bail bond when the surety claimed no gain and lack of connivance in the accused's disappearance. The Supreme Court held that it was the duty of the surety to procure the attendance of the accused charged with murder, and no ground appeared to show leniency in reducing the forfeiture of the full bond amount. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle regarding the strict liability of a surety to produce the accused.
- Is a surety liable for the full forfeiture of a bail bond when the accused absconds?
- Whether lack of connivance in the disappearance of an accused is sufficient ground to reduce the forfeiture amount of a surety bond?
- Does a surety standing bail without personal gain absolve them from the duty to procure the attendance of the accused?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Jamroz Khan petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 13-6-1989, whereby his criminal revision against the forfeiture of his surety bond by the Additional Sessions Judge, was dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts of this petition are that one Mushtaq Ahmad was accused in an offence under section 302 P.P.C. And was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, in a sum of Rs, 50,000 with one surety in the like amount and Jamroz Khan petitioner stood surety on his behalf. He furnished surety bonds of the said amount on 21-12-1980. Mushtaq Ahmad who is alleged to be the principal accused in the said murder case, disappeared w,e,f. 18-1-1989 and so far has not surrendered to the Court. Hence notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge that why his surety be not forfeited and he was ordered to deposit the surety amount of Rs,50,000 within fourteen days, vide order dated 17-4-1989. This order was challenged in a revision petition before the High Court and a learned Single Judge vide his order dated 13-6-1989, dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before us for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment. The learned counsel states that the petitioner stood surety for Mushtaq Ahmad who was his neighbour and thus it was for no gain and the disappearance of Mushtaq accused was not with the connivance of the petitioner.
4. After the hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that Mushtaq Ahmad is admittedly charged for the offence of murder and it was the duty of the surety to have procured the attendance of Mushtaq accused and thus no ground appears for us to show any leniency in the reduction of the forfeiture of bail bond of the full amount, furnished by the petitioner. Thus, finding no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- HIDAYAT ULLAH Versus State 2019 YLRN 10
- ZEESHAN KAZMI Versus THE STATE 1997 PLD 267
- In re: REFERENCE OF SESSIONS JUDGE, SUKKUR vs NOT 1995 PLD Karachi 436