Khan Iftikhar Shahzada vs The 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 bond of an accused as a witness. Upon the accused absconding, the trial court issued a notice to the petitioner, directing him to either produce the surety or pay the bond amount, asserting that attesting witnesses are bound by the terms of the bail bond. The core legal question was whether an attesting witness to a bail bond incurs any legal liability or obligation for the accused's non-appearance. The High Court held that the trial court's order was wholly without jurisdiction. It clarified that an attesting witness does not become a party to the bail bond and is not bound by its terms. The Court further affirmed the established legal principle that the mere act of attestation does not constitute an estoppel against the witness. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
- Does an attesting witness to a bail bond incur legal liability for the accused's failure to appear?
- Can a court hold an attesting witness liable for the bond amount if the accused absconds?
- Does the attestation of 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
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.- Ishtaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Rafiq was an accused of commission of offences under Sections 406/420, PPC, vide a case FIR No. 192, dated 30.5.2000, at Police Station Margala, 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 Addl. 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 Addl.
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 estoppel. This Crl. Revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 13.9.2003 of the learned Addl.-Sessions Judge, Islamabad inasmuch as it directs issuance of said notice to the petitioner- witness is set aside.