1998 P Cr (PLP)

This case related to an offence pertaining to narcotics. The Trial Court forfeited the full amount of surety bond, namely, Rs.50,000 in respect of each of the accused. The High Court upon revision reduced the same to Rs.40,

000. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the above order of the High Court. (iii)?????? Jamroz Khan v. The State 1990 SCMR 1313. A murder case. The Additional Sessions Judge forfeited the full amount of surety bond, namely, 50,

000. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court declined to interfere with the above order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court declined to leave to appear and maintained the original order. It was observed:

"After hearing, the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that Mushtaq Ahmad is admittedly charged for the offence of murder and it was the duty of the surety to have produced the attendance of Mushtaq accused and thus, no ground appears for us to show any leniency in the reduction of the forfeiture of bail bond of the full amount furnished by the petitioner. Thus, finding no force in this petition it is accordingly dismissed. " (iv)?????? Muhammad Sharif and another v. The State 1994 SCMR

690. In this case, the Trial Court forfeited the entire surety bond amount of Rs.50,

000. The High Court reduced the same to Rs.20,000 as the accused remained absconder for about eight months and thereafter he was arrested. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order. (v)??????? Muhammad Hussain and another v. The State PLD 1995 SC

348. This case involved two petitions for leave to appeal, which were disposed of by a common order. In Criminal Petition No.262-L of 1994, the Trial Court forfeited the surety bond amount of Rs.10,

000. The High Court reduced the same to Rs.7,000 in a case under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Whereas in Criminal Petition, No.263-L of 1994, which related to an offence under section 324/337, P.P.C. the Trial Court forfeited the surety bond amount of Rs.50,

000. The High Court reduced the same to Rs.25,

000. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the above judgment of the High Court. (vi) ????? Malik Sher Ahmad Khan v. The State 1996 SCMR

244. In this case surety amount of Rs.50,000 was forfeited by the Magistrate concerned in a case under section 302, P.P.C. The High Court reduced the same to ks.25,

000. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the above order. (vii) ???? Zafar Ali and another v. The State 1996 SCMR

995. The Trial Court in a case under section 302, P.P.C. forfeited Rs.75,000 out of Rs.1,00,000 of the surety bond amount, upon abscondence of the accused. The High Court reduced the above amount to Rs.60,

000. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the above order of the High Court.

9. Additionally it may be mentioned here, that in a recent case reported as Zeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC.267, a Full Bench of the Honourable apex Court has held:

"(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898).

S. 514

Bail Bond, forfeiture of

Once an accused person jumps bail bond, the entire surety amount become liable to be forfeited in the` absence of any mitigating circumstances

Courts in view of bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the precedent continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, should not show any leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount

Approach of Courts should be dynamic and progressive ?oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bond. There has been overall deterioration in all spheres of life. The Crime rate has increased manifolds. The criminal instinct/propensity has penetrated in all walks of life. Some of the personnel of the State functionaries/agencies which are entrusted with the duty to protect the life, property and honour of citizens, either themselves actively participate in the commission of the heinous crime or they provide protective umbrella to the criminals. Their credibility has been denuded to the extent that the victims of the crimes do not approach them for their help or protection, which they are otherwise entitled to as a matter of right under the Constitution. It has now become common that the accused persons involved in heinous offence, if succeed, in obtaining bail, jump the bail bond. To check such tendency and to provide deterrent, special provisions have been enacted and/or are being enacted in the special statutes prescribing the minimum amount of bail bond. Keeping in view the bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the unprecedented continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, the Courts should not show any undue leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. Their approach should be dynamic and progressive-oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bonds. There is no legal requirement that full bail bond amount should not be forfeited, on the contrary, once an accused person jumps bail bonds, the entire surety amount becomes liable to he forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. " (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898).

S. 514

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.302/34

Bail Bond, forfeiture of

Jumping bail bond by accused person

Effect

Accused was allegedly involved in a case in which eight persons were murdered and a number of persons were injured

Accused, at the relevant time was Station House Officer of a Police Station, and he was expected to behave more in civilized manner than an ordinary criminal person--?Surety was father-in-law of the accused and, therefore, he was in a better position to produce the accused than a stranger

Surety was provided opportunities to secure attendance of accused but he failed--?Supreme Court, in view, of such legal and factual position, ordered the forfeiture of the full amount of bail bond (Rs.2,00,000)."

10. In the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and on a tentative assessment of the record, which is before me, I am of the considered view that the Additional Sessions Judge has duly taken into his consideration/account all the material facts of the case and has recorded a speaking order which shows proper application of judicial mind. Since the order impugned is neither arbitrary nor perverse, therefore the same is not liable to be interfered with/set aside.

11. This petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. has no substance and is dismissed. N.H.Q./2224/P??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed