MIRA KHAN and otherss vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kohat, which forfeited the surety bonds of the petitioners and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 each. The petitioners had acted as sureties for an accused person, Ismail Khan, during his trial. Following the accused's conviction and sentencing by the trial court, the State filed a revision petition. When the accused failed to appear in the revisional court, the trial court forfeited the petitioners' bonds. The core legal question was whether sureties for an accused during trial remain liable for the accused's appearance during subsequent revisional proceedings initiated by the State. The Court held that the petitioners' liability ceased upon the conclusion of the trial and the conviction of the accused, as the bail bonds were specifically limited to the trial proceedings. The Court set aside the impugned order, establishing the principle that the liability of a surety must be determined strictly according to the express terms of the bond, which cannot be extended beyond the specific obligations undertaken therein.
- Does a surety bond furnished for an accused's appearance during trial extend to subsequent revisional proceedings?
- Can a court forfeit a surety bond for non-appearance of an accused in a proceeding not covered by the terms of the bond?
- Should a bail bond be construed strictly according to its express terms?
- Section 13, West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
- Articles 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 439-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
Mira Khan son of Aslam Khan and Raees Khan son of Mosam Khan, petitioners, both residents of Muhammadzai, District Kohat, have filed instant Criminal Revision No,96 of 1998, challenging the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kohat dated 29-10-1998, forfeiting the surety bonds and directing the petitioners to deposit Rs,10,000 each in the State Treasury, as penalty.
2. Shortly narrated the facts are that the petitioners had stood sureties for one Ismail Khan son of Nawab Khan, an Afghan Refugee, involved in case F.I.R. No,169 dated 6-5-1992 registered at Police Station Jangle Khel Kohat, for offences under section 13 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 read with Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Ismail accused was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kohat and having been found guilty was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 22 days' S.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,500, vide. Order dated 29-11-1997. Feeling aggrieved the State filed a revision petition under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Against the above said conviction order. Ismail Khan accused did not appear in the revisional Court and the petitioners were given notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Resultantly the impugned order was passed.
3. I have heard at length Haji M. Zahir Shah, Advocate for the petitioners and Malik Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.
4. A perusal of the bail bonds would reveal that the petitioners had stood sureties for an accused person Ismail Khan, to the effect that he will appear in the trial Court during the trial proceedings.
After the conviction and sentence of Ismail Khan, the petitioners were absolved of their legal obligation, from the responsibility of the surety bond submitted by them to the trial Court in the above mentioned case. The petitioners had submitted no bail bond in the revision petition of the State against Ismail Khan accused and they had taken no responsibility at any stage that they will produce the accused after his conviction and sentence by the trial Court in a revision filed by the State and as such the impugned order has been passed in total disregard to the terms of bail bonds. Mir Mubarak Ali and another v. The State 1997 SCM R 571. It needs no reiteration that the liability of the surety should be determined on the terms of the bond itself, and for that purpose the bond should be construed strictly as held in the State v. Abdur Rehman PLD 1965 (W.P.) Karachi 90.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the criminal revision is accepted and the impugned order dated 29-10-1998 is set aside.