MEHMOOD KHAN and another vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had declined to interfere with a trial court's decision regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds. The petitioners stood as sureties for an accused who failed to appear before the trial court, leading to the forfeiture of the bail bonds and the imposition of a penalty under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Upon the petitioners' failure to pay the penalty, they were initially ordered to be lodged in civil prison, though they were later released upon providing new sureties. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to interfere with the trial court's order imposing penalties for the breach of surety obligations. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to fulfill their obligations for a significant period and did not comply with the trial court's orders. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the impugned order disclosed no illegality warranting interference, and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's refusal to exercise discretion regarding the forfeiture of bail bonds when the petitioners failed to comply with court orders?
- Is the imposition of a penalty under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justified when sureties fail to produce an accused in court?
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' SH. RIAZ AHMAD. C.J.---Precisely the facts giving rise to the institution of this petition for leave to appeal are that Aman Ullah Khan accused was admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Narowal and the petitioners stood surety for the said accused persons in the sum of Rs, 25.000 each. On 30-8-2000 the said accused did not appear before the trial Court and thus, his bailapplication was dismissed and in consequence of proceedings under section 514, Criminal Procedure Code, the learned trial Judge imposed the penalty of Rs,25,000 each upon the petitioners vide order, dated 22-1-2001 and on 11-4-2001 on failure of the petitioners to pay the requisite amount of penalty, they were taken into custody and were ordered to be lodged in civil prison, but on the same day, two persons came forward and stood sureties for petitioners' payment of penalty within the next thirty days. Thus, the petitioners were released.
Unfortunately, neither the petitioners nor their sureties bothered to deposit the amount of penalty.
Petitioners at one point of time moved an application 'efore the trial Court seeking review of its earlier order, dated 22-1-2001 which was dismissed on 28-4-2003. Thus, the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court, but their prayer was declined through the order impugned.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the orders of the Courts below. The petitioners had failed to fulfil their obligation for quite a long time and did not comply with the order of the trial Court. Thus, the learned Judge of the High Court A rightly declined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners and the order impugned does not disclose any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit and leave to appeal is refused.