MUHAMMAD TUFAIL and 2 otherss vs THE STATE
The petitioners stood surety for two accused persons facing trial under sections 302/324/148/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Attock. The case was subsequently transferred to an Anti-Terrorism Court, where the accused persons absconded just before the announcement of the judgment. Consequently, the trial court proceeded against the petitioners under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and ordered the forfeiture of their surety bonds. The petitioners challenged this order through a criminal revision before the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether sureties could be penalized when the accused absconded after the case was transferred to another court without fresh surety bonds being furnished for that court. The Lahore High Court held that since the bonds were originally submitted before the Sessions Court and no fresh bonds were called for or furnished before the transferee Special Court, and given that the accused had regularly appeared throughout the trial until the final moment, the penalty imposed upon the sureties was unwarranted. The Court laid down that sureties cannot be held liable under section 514, Cr.P.C. upon transfer of a case unless fresh bonds are executed for the transferee court, and allowed the revision, setting aside the forfeiture order.
- Can sureties be penalized under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when an accused absconds after the case is transferred to another court without fresh bonds being furnished?
- Does the transfer of a criminal case automatically carry over the liability of sureties without the execution of fresh bonds for the transferee court?
- Whether sureties are discharged from liability when the accused persons regularly appear throughout the trial until the final judgment stage?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 stood surety for Sher Afghan, in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each while petitioner No,1 stood surety for Muhammad Iqbal in the same amount. The said persons were accused of commission of offences under sections 302/ 324/148/149, P.P.C. Vide F.1.R. No,216 dated 19-12-1998, Police Station Jand. The said persons kept on appearing throughout the trial. However, according to the learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Rawalpindi, while he was about to announce the final judgment the said accused persons slipped sway and absconded. The petitioners were proceeded against in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C.. And they were ultimately burdened with a penalty by forfeiture of the entire bonds and they were called upon to deposit Rs,1,00,000 each. This was done vide order, dated 31-10-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the bonds were filed by his clients in the Court of a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Attock and they had undertaken that the said accused persons shall appear in the said Court. Later the case was transferred to the Special Court and the said accused persons were never called upon to file fresh bonds neither did the petitioners file any bonds/undertaking that the said persons shall keep on appearing in the Special Court. He relies on judgments in the cases of Muhammad Amanullah v. The State PLD 1992 Lah. 347 and Khan Bahadur v. The State 1992 PCr.LJ 2238. Further contends that it is a matter of record that the accused persons had been appearing throughout the trial and as such the petitioners had discharged the condition of their bonds, According to the learned counsel in the said circumstances of the case, the petitioners could not have been penalized. Refers to the cases of Farman Ali v. The State 1999 PCr.0 2102 and Shafiq Ahmad and others v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 623.
Learned A.A.-G. Has not much to say in opposition to the said contentions of the learned counsel.
3. We have examined the trial Court records which are available. We do find that the bonds qua Sher Afghan accused (pages 385 to 388 of trial Court tile) and for Muhammad lqbal accused (pages 403 to 406 of the trial Court file) were filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No,11, Attock. There is nothing on the said record that the said accused persons were ever called upon by the learned Special Court to file a fresh bail bond or that the petitioners did file such bonds.
Similarly it is in the impugned order of the learned Special Court itself that the said persons slipped away when the learned Court was in the process of announcing the judgment. Thus both the contentions of the learned counsel stand borne out from the record and are duly supported by the said judgments cited by him. We, therefore, allow this criminal revision and set aside the impugned order, dated 31-10-2000 of the learned Judge, Special Court (Anti-Terrorism), Rawalpindi and discharge the petitioners of their liability under the said bonds.