ABDUL HALEEM and anothers vs THE, STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition filed by the petitioners challenging the forfeiture of their surety bonds. The petitioners had acted as sureties for an accused, Farrukh Shahzad, in a murder case. Upon the accused absconding and remaining untraceable for over three and a half years, the trial court ordered the full forfeiture of the petitioners' surety bonds. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the forfeiture of the full amount of the surety bonds was appropriate given the petitioners' financial circumstances. The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the failure of the petitioners to produce the accused, exercised its discretion to mitigate the penalty. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and partly allowed it, reducing the forfeiture amount to Rs. 75,000 for each petitioner. The judgment establishes the principle that while sureties are obligated to ensure the presence of an accused, courts retain the discretion to reduce the quantum of forfeited bond amounts based on the financial hardship of the sureties.
- Can the Supreme Court reduce the amount of a forfeited surety bond based on the financial hardship of the sureties?
- Does the failure of a surety to produce an absconding accused justify the forfeiture of the surety bond?
' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 22-8-2001 of the Lahore High Court, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners against the forfeiture of their surety bonds was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners Abdul Haleem and Muhammad Jameel stood sureties and furnished bonds of release on bail of one Farrukh Shahzad who was involved in a murder case. The said Farrukh Shahzad had disappeared for the last more than 31/2 years and is not traceable. Accordingly, on failure of the petitioners to secure the availability of the said accused, they were proceeded against and their bonds in full were forfeited vide order, dated 6-8- 2001. They preferred a revision petition against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
3. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us is that the petitioners are poor persons and they cannot pay full amount of the bonds.
4. In the circumstances, the petition is converted into appeal and partly allowed. The amount of surety bond is reduced to Rs.75,000 each against the petitioners.
Surety amount reduced. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.