MUKHTAR ALI vs THE STATE and others-
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Okara, which forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner, who stood surety for an accused, Talib Hussain, due to the accused's failure to appear in court on four successive dates. The petitioner was ordered to pay the bond amount or face attachment of his property. The core legal question is whether a surety remains liable for the forfeiture of bail bonds when the accused has subsequently surrendered and been granted interim bail by a competent court. The Court held that the impugned order could not be sustained. It reasoned that because the accused had surrendered to the court's jurisdiction and was granted interim bail before arrest, the purpose of the surety bond was effectively satisfied. Consequently, the petitioner was absolved of his legal liability to produce the accused. The key principle laid down is that a surety's liability to produce an accused is extinguished once the accused surrenders to the court's jurisdiction and is granted fresh bail, rendering the forfeiture of the original bond unjustified.
- Does a surety remain liable for the forfeiture of bail bonds if the accused subsequently surrenders to the court's jurisdiction?
- Is a surety absolved of the obligation to produce an accused once the accused is granted interim bail by a competent court?
The present criminal revision petition is directed against the order, dated 7-1-1986, passed by Muhammad Ilyas, Additional Sessions Judge IIIrd, Okara, whereby the bail bonds of Rs.5,000 submitted by the petitioner on behalf of the accused Talib were ordered to be forfeited, and he was further directed to deposit the said amount within one week for the failure of the petitioner to produce the said accused Talib in the Court, as the said accused had not appeared before the Court for the last four successive dates. It was further directed by the said order that on the failure of the petitioner to deposit the amount in question the same shall be recovered by attachment of his property.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had stood surety for the accused Talib Hussain out of benevolence and not for the monetary gain and may be dealt with leniency under the circumstances. Further submitted that in the instant case, the said accused Talib has put in appearance before the Court after cancellation of his bail, and that he was allowed interim bail, vide order, dated 26-12-1985, therefore, argued that as the previous bail order was no longer in the field, and as the said accused had been granted interim bail before arrest by a competent Court after taking into consideration all the facts relevant to the cancellation of his previous bail, therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for an act which had been duly considered by the said Court, and thereafter the accused Talib's case was considered to be one of bail before arrest.
3. A perusal of the impugned judgment confirms the contentions stated above, on behalf of the petitioner, as it is stated therein that, the interim bail as stated above was allowed to tire petitioner.
4. Therefore, in view of what has been stated above, as the accused Talib had put in appearance before the Court and thus surrendered himself to the jurisdiction of the said Court and as the said Court after having heard the said accused had allowed him interim bail before arrest, therefore, the present petitioner stood absolved of his legal liability to produce the said accused before the Court.
5. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, hence the present criminal revision petition is allowed and the) impugned order, dated 7-1-1986 is hereby set aside.
6. The office is directed to return the record of the case to the trial Court immediately, and it is further directed that the trial Court shall make all attempts possible for the expeditious disposal of the instant case.
Cited by 3 cases
- Mst. Jamti Khatoon Mastoi vs The State 2023 YLR 684
- SHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE 2009 P Cr. L J 962
- AHMED BUKSH vs THE STATE and anothers 2006 YLR 2648