Khan IFTIKHAR SHAHZADA vs ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, ISLAMABAD
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, which sought to hold the petitioner liable for the default of an accused person. The petitioner had merely attested the bail bonds furnished by a surety for an accused charged under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon the accused absconding, the trial court initiated proceedings against the surety under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and subsequently issued a notice to the petitioner, asserting that an attesting witness is bound by the terms of the bail bond. The core legal question was whether an attesting witness to a bail bond incurs liability for the accused's non-appearance or the surety's default. The Court held that the order was passed without jurisdiction, ruling that an attesting witness is not a party to the bail bond and cannot be held liable for its terms. The Court established the principle that the mere attestation of a bail bond does not create any legal obligation or estoppel against the witness regarding the appearance of the accused.
- Does the attestation of a bail bond by a witness create a legal liability for the witness regarding the appearance of the accused?
- Can a court initiate proceedings against an attesting witness of a bail bond under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the act of attesting a bail bond constitute an estoppel against the witness?
- Section 406, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' Ishfaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Rafiq was an accused of commission of offences under sections 406/420, P.P.C. Vide a case F.I.R. No,192 dated 30-5-2000, at Police Station Margla, Islamabad. He was granted pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,40,000 with one surety. One Haroon Ahmad son of Muhammad Rafiq, stood surety and furnished the bail bonds. Khan Iftikhar, petitioner, attested the said bonds as a witness. As it happened, said accused person absconded and proceedings were initiated against Haroon Ahmad, surety in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C. His non-bailable warrants for his arrest were issued which came back with the report that said Haroon Ahmad has gone to U.K.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, proceeded to issue notice to the petitioner on 13-9- 2003 holding that attesting witnesses are also bound by the terms of the bail bond. Notice was ordered to be issued directing the petitioner to produce the surety before the Court or to make payment of the amount of bond, failing which legal action shall be taken against him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order on the face of it is without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel appearing for State finds it difficult to defend the impugned order.
3. I feel no hesitation in agreeing with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order wholly without jurisdiction. The term of the bail granting order was furnishing of a bail bond by the said absconding accused with one surety in the like amount. The petitioner only attested the bond as witness. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner can be bound by the terms of the bond. Needless to add that the consensus of judicial authority in the Subcontinent is that such an attestation does not even constitute an estoppal. This criminal revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 13-9-2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad inasmuch as it directs issuance of said notice to the petitioner-witness is set aside.
Cited by 1 case
- JAMIL vs THE STATE 2007 YLR 1808