Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 58 of 1985, decided on 26th January, 1986.

‑‑Ss. 514 & 439‑‑Trial Court forfeiting bail bonds executed by sureties due to absence of accused for whom sureties had executed bail bonds in sum of Rs.20,000‑‑Accused re‑arrested through efforts of sureties only four days after issuance of show‑cause notice to them‑‑Trial Court nevertheless directing sureties to pay Rs.5,000 each as penalty‑‑ Reduction of penalty sought on ground that sureties were not to blame for absence of accused who was apprehended only through their efforts‑ Prosecutor not opposing prayer of sureties‑‑Amount to be paid by sureties reduced to Rs.100 each in circumstances.

Sardar Muhammad Ishaq for Applicants.

A.A. Mohammadally, A.A.‑G. for the State.

This application has been 'made on behalf of two sureties who had executed bail bond undertaking that accused Muhammad Aslam who was facing murder trial in the Court of VIth Additional Sessions Judge; Karachi will regularly attend the Court on each date of hearing. The amount of bail executed by them was Rs.20,000 each. Since, the accused remained absent on 14‑3‑1985, the learned Court passed an order forfeiting the bail bond executed by the sureties and calling upon them to show cause why the amount of bail bond should not be recovered from them.

It appears from the case diary of the trial Court that the accused was re‑arrested on 13‑4‑1985. It is also not disputed by the learned A.A.‑G. that his arrest became possible due to efforts made by the applicant's sureties. Nevertheless, the learned trial Court by the impugned order directed the sureties to pay Rs.5,000 each as penalty. The learned counsel for the sureties has prayed that in view of the fact that sureties were not to blame for the absence of the accused and who again was apprehended only through their efforts, the above amount is too excessive.

In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the authority of this Court reported as Azizur Rehman v. The State 1975 PCr.LJ 58 wherein surety had executed a bond for keeping control over the movements of the accused. Somehow the accused remained absent on fixed date and as a result bail bond executed by the surety was forfeited. However, the accused was arrested through surety's efforts. In the context of these facts, the amount of forfeiture was reduced from Rs.2,000 to Rs.50.

In the instant case also the accused was arrested through the efforts of the sureties only four days after the show‑cause notice was issued to them. The learned A.A.‑G. concedes that this is a case where the penalty imposed upon the sureties needs to be reduced. A After considering the circumstances of the case in which the accused remained absent and was re‑arrested through the efforts of the sureties, I allow the application and reduce the amount to be paid by the sureties from Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,000 each. If the amount has already been deposited by the sureties, the balance of Rs.4,000 each will be returned to them.

H.A.K. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.