ZULFIQAR AHMAD vs THE STATE and another

Brief facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner stood surety for one Muhammad Zubair who was accused of a case F.I.R. No,111 of 2001 registered with Police Station Khutila Sheikhan, Tehsil and District Mandi Bahauddin, under section 10/VII of 1979. The accused moved an application in anticipation of his arrest and as such he was admitted to bail on 2-4-2001 up till 7-4-2001 subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount. Pursuant to the order, the petitioner stood surety for him and executed a bond in the sum of Rs,50,000. An attested copy of the Surety Bond has been annexed. As per undertaking contained in the Surety Deed, the present petitioner i,e, the surety undertook to produce the accused before the Court on 7-4-2001 and also in-between 2-4-2001 to 7-4-2001. On 7-4-2001 the accused appeared before the Court but the learned Judge was on leave, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 12-4-2001 and interim bail was also extended till then. On 12-4-2001 the accused did not turn up in Court, rather submitted his Medical Certificate, therefore, till today he has not put up appearance and is fugitive.

2. It is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner was under liability to produce the accused only up till 7-4-2001 or during the interregnum i,e, 2-4-2001 to 7-4-2001 before the Court or before the Investigating Officer. On 7-4-2001 the accused appeared and if the bail was extended then he was not liable to produce him in Court on any subsequent date, as such he cannot be proceeded against and cannot be punished for nonappearance of the accused on any subsequent date after 7-4-2001. In support of his contention placed reliance on a case titled Sardar Muhammad v. The State 1998 PCr.LJ 236. Wherein, under similar circumstances the surety who had been burdened to pay the surety was exonerated, because the surety was not under any obligation to produce the accused on a date for which he had not executed the bond. In fact it is a contract in-between the surety and the Court that in case the accused defaults in appearance, only on a date for which the surety bond is executed, the surety would be responsible for the same. In view of this matter, the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge burdening the surety to deposit Rs,25,000 out of Rs,50,000 as surety, is not lawful and as such cannot be maintained. This revision is therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

4. Before parting with the Order, it is pertinent to mention here that ordinarily what happens is that an interim bail is granted up to a certain date, thereafter, if the same is extended then care should be taken that accused shall furnish bond up to that date or suitable amendment be incorporated in the bond which is obtained from the sureties that they will be responsible to produce the accused on next date of hearing or on any date in the bail matter fixed subsequent to that date. So far as the present pro forma of Surety Deed is concerned, it provides that the surety will be responsible for production of the accused on one date only which is provided next after grant of ad interim bail. On account of this defect the Zamanat Nama which is available in printed form is accepted in routine without realizing the consequences as to what will be situation, in case the matter is adjourned to some other date and the bail is extended further. The Printed Form therefore, should incorporate a covenant that the surety shall be bound till the disposal of application for pre-arrest bail or in the alternative the surety should give an undertaking to produce the accused till then Copy of this order be circulated, so that necessary amendment may be incorporated in the Zamanat Nama and in future care should be taken by the learned Courts below in this behalf. This Criminal Revision is disposed of in view of the above observations.