SHATAB KHAN and anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition arises out of orders passed by the lower courts forfeiting the surety bonds of the petitioners amounting to Rs. 30,000 each after the accused for whom they stood surety failed to appear in court and became a fugitive from law in a separate murder case. The core legal question is whether surety bonds can be justly forfeited when the accused has absconded and been declared a proclaimed offender, and the sureties are poor, illiterate individuals who acted purely out of humanitarian considerations. The Lahore High Court held that since the accused became a fugitive and even the State failed to apprehend him, it was humanly impossible for the simple, impoverished petitioners to produce him, rendering the forfeiture of their bonds oppressive and unjust. The court laid down the principle that where an accused absconds in circumstances beyond the control of sureties who acted without monetary gain, enforcing the full penalty of surety bonds is unjust, warranting the setting aside of forfeiture orders under revisional jurisdiction.
- Whether the forfeiture of surety bonds is justified when the accused becomes a fugitive from law and is declared a proclaimed offender?
- Can poor and illiterate sureties be penalized for failing to produce an accused who has absconded in a separate criminal case?
- Does the inability of the State to apprehend an absconding accused affect the liability of his sureties to pay the penalty on forfeited bonds?
' The petitioners stood sureties for one Muhammad Aslam, an accused in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,501/92 at Police Station Kanganpur, but on the failure of the said accused to appear on the date fixed for hearing, the learned trial Court cancelled his bail, forfeited surety bonds and directed the petitioners to deposit the amount of surety Rs,30.000 each as penalty, vide order dated 7-8- 1994 and appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed by the District Magistrate, Kasur, vide order dated 4-10-1994. Hence, the present criminal revision petition impugning the said two orders.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the State were heard at length in respect of the contentions raised herein. The learned counsel for the State submitted that no illegality or material irregularity can be pointed out in the impugned order, therefore, no interference therewith is called for under the revisional jurisdiction.
3. The learned counsel prays for the setting aside of the impugned orders in question, by arguing that the petitioner, illiterate and poor tenants, had stood sureties for the accused Muhammad Aslam, out of benevolence and humanitarian consideration and not for any monetary or personal gain, but, in any case, as the said accused had become a fugitive from law in a separate murder case and pursuant thereto he had been declared a proclaimed offender, therefore, it was humanly not possible for the simple villagers, like petitioners, to ensure his production before the Court: and that, therefore, under such circumstances, the petitioners should not have been taken to task and the forfeiture of the bail bonds, submitted by them, vide orders impugned, was oppressive and unjust and should be set aside.
4 . The Court has given its anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Admittedly, the accused Muhammad Aslam, for whom the petitioners had stood sureties, is a fugitive from law in a different murder case, having been declared a "proclaimed offender" and as such, it was not humanly possible for the petitioners to ensure his production before the Court; further emphasising in this respect that even the State, with all its powers and resources at its command has failed to apprehend the said accused till date, and further taking into consideration that the petitioners, illiterate and poor tenants, had stood sureties for the said accused, not for any monetary or personal gain but out of benevolence and humanitarian consideration, it is hereby held that the forfeiture of the bonds, submitted by the petitioners under such circumstances, shall be oppressive, hence, unjust. Therefore, the present criminal revision petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 7-8-1994 and 4-10-1994, passed by the learned lower Courts, are hereby set aside. Disposed of.
Revision .
Cited by 8 cases
- IMDAD HUSSAIN and anothers vs THE STATE 2012 PLD Federal Shariat Court 13
- ABDUL FATTAH vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 1823
- AMIR ZAMAN & another vs STATE PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 969
- AMIR ZAMAN and another vs THE STATE 2006 PLD Peshawar 163
- NASIB-UR-REHMAN and another vs THE STATE 2005 P C R L J 269
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus State 2006 YLR 1008
- NASIB-UR-REHMAN Versus State 2005 PCRLJ 269
- HIDAYAT ULLAH Versus State 2019 YLRN 10