Pakistan Case Law
2000 SCMR 312

MUHAMMAD SAFEER vs FAQIR KHAN and 2 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2000 SCMR 312
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No,188 of 1998
Date1999-10-11
Judge(s)Abdur Rehman Khan, Sh. Riaz Ahmed and Kamal Mansur Alam
Authored bySh. Riaz Ahmed
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Peshawar High Court judgment, which upheld the forfeiture of a bail bond. The petitioner had stood surety for an accused person who subsequently absconded, leading to the forfeiture of the bail bond under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. While an Additional Sessions Judge had initially reduced the penalty amount from the full bond value of Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 20,000, the High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that such reduction was legally impermissible. The core legal question was whether a court has the discretion to reduce the penalty amount of a forfeited bail bond below the full amount specified in the bond. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that upon the forfeiture of a bail bond due to the accused's non-appearance, the court is obligated to enforce the forfeiture to the extent of the full amount of the bond, as established in prior binding precedents. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, maintaining the strict enforcement of the bond's terms.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a court legally permitted to reduce the penalty amount of a forfeited bail bond below the full amount specified in the bond?
  • What is the legal consequence for a surety when an accused person fails to appear in court as per the bail bond conditions?
  • Does the court have the discretion to mitigate the penalty of a forfeited bail bond based on the surety's lack of involvement in the accused's abscondence?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
bail bondforfeiture of bail bondsuretyabscondencecriminal procedurepenalty reduction

ORDER

' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order dated 30-10-1998 delivered by a learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner to call in question the order of the Additional Sessions Judge passed on appeal in connection with the forfeiture of the bail bond furnished by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The facts in brief are that uncle of the petitioner, namely, Muhammad Rafiq, allegedly committed murder and he applied for bail before arrest and interim bail was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 with two sureties each in the said amount.

Petitioner and one Kala Khan stood sureties for Muhammad Rafiq and both executed bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each. On the date of confirmation of the bail, aforesaid Muhammad Rafiq did not appear. On account of the absence of Muhammad Rafiq vide order dated 3-12-1997 the order allowing interim bail was recalled and an order was passed forfeiting the bail bond submitted by the petitioner and the case was referred to the Judicial Magistrate for proceeding in accordance with law. The learned Judicial Magistrate initiated proceedings against the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. The petitioner was given time to produce his uncle Muhammad Rafiq, but he failed to do so. Another period of one month was sought for the production of Muhammad Rafiq, but the petitioner failed to produce him. On 14-2-1998 the petitioner stated before the Judicial Magistrate that he was unable to procure the attendance of Muhammad Rafiq upon which the learned Judicial Magistrate directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs,1,00,000 or in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of six months. The other surety Kala Khan did not appear and therefore, the process was issued against him for his appearance in Court.

3. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the order dated 4-3-1998 observed that petitioner being nephew of Muhammad Rafiq had stood surety without any consideration and he had no hand in the abscondence of the accused Muhammad Rafiq and therefore, taking a lenient view of the forfeiture order, the amount of the bond was reduced from Rs,1,00,000 to Rs,20,000 or in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. The petitioner challenged the orders of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4-3-1998 whereby the amount of the bond had been reduced from Rs,1,00,000 to Rs,20,000 by way of filing a revision petition in the High Court, which was dismissed vide orders impugned.

The learned Judge of the Peshawar High Court by placing reliance upon the following observations of this Court in the judgment reported as Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 267) and another judgment reported as Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and others (PLD 1998 SC 50) came to the conclusion that the reduction of the amount of the bail bond was not in consonance with law. The forfeiture should have been to the extent of the full amount of the bond. When confronted with the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel confined his arguments to the effect that the petitioner has already suffered simple imprisonment for two months and therefore, a lenient view should be taken. Be that as it may, we are bound by the judgments delivered by this Court referred to here in before .

4. In the light of the ratio of the aforesaid judgments, we do not find any merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

Cited by 6 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.