Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 41 of 1986, heard on 29th October 1986.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--

- , S. 514-Surety amount, forfeiture of-No allegation against applicant that he stood surety for accused person for any monetary benefits or connived at his abscondence-Amount of penalty reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 4,000 in circumstances.

Dildar and another v. The State P L D 1963 S C 47 ; Haji Abdul Karim v. The State 1983 P Cr. L J 137 and Muhammad Khan v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 2028 ref.

Ruknuddin Kasmi for Appellant.

Syed Zawar Hussain Jaffari, Add]. A.-G. for the State.

Date of bearing : 29th October, 1986.

In this criminal revision the order of IVth Addl Sessions Judge, Sukkur dated 6- 5-1986 is impugned whereby he ordered the applicant to pay Rs. 10,000 as penalty for failing to produce the accused for whom he had stood surety in the Court. The learned counsel has assailed this order on the ground that penalty imposed is excessive and the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dildar and another v. The State (PLD1963SC47) wherein their Lordships observed: -

"Sureties are not constituted as custodians of accused persons, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, it may generally be assumed that they do not gain by standing surety. The system of releasing accused persons on bail has several aspects of importance to the administration of justice generally. It avoids anything in the nature of punishment in advance, since restraint upon liberty even when applied for the purpose of ensuring that a case is duly inquired into and judged, necessarily involves loss of personal rights. At the same time, the release of accused persons on bail assists in the administration of justice by preventing overcrowding in the available spaces of imprisonment. Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who are in default, a balance has to be held between undue leniency, which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue severity, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. Finally, in assessing to what extent the bond should be forfeited, the Court would have regard to such matters as whether the sureties have any direct interest through fiscal or blood connection with the accused, whether they have connived at or procured the absence of the accused, and whether they have done their best to secure his attendance."

It was further held by the Court that as the sureties had acted through mere benevolence therefore, forfeiture of bond of Rs. 5,000 was reduced to Rs. 1,000. Relying on this cafe-law a learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Haji Abdul Karim v. The State (1983 P Cr. L J 137) reduced forfeiture of bond of Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 5,000 when there was no allegation that appli cant had stood surety for monetary consideration. Same principles were followed by learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court in case of Muhammad Khan v. The State (1986 P Cr. L J 2028

) and the amount of bond was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 5,000 where the petitioner had stood surety not for monetary consideration and no connivance about disappearance of accused was alleged against the petitioner.

It is contended by learned counsel that the learned trial Judge did not take into consideration the attempts made by the applicant to procure the attendance of accused person for, which he took several dates from the Court. It is further contended that there is no allegation against the applicant that he stood surety for the accused person for any monetary, benefits or that he connived at in his abscondence.