1993 PLP 541 (MLD)

S.514

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.307/336/148/149

Forfeiture of bond

Order of extension of interim bail was passed in absence of the surety and therefore surety bond already submitted by him for a specific period could not be treated valid for the extended period

Accused did not disappear during the period for which the surety bond was submitted by the petitioner, he was, therefore, not responsible for the absence of accused and had no liability in this behalf

Order of forfeiture of bond and imposition of penalty on the surety was set aside in circumstances. Ch. Ali Muhammad or Petitioner. Maqsood Ahmad Khan for the State. The petitioner has questioned the order of forfeiture of the surety bond submitted by him and the imposition of penalty of Rs.2,000 to him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 9-12-1996,

2. The petitioner stood surety for Amjid Masih accused in a case under sections 307, 336, 148, 149, P.P.C. Police Station Narang, who was granted interim pre-arrest bail till 8-10-1990, and was further extended till 20-11-1990, on which date Amjid Masih accused absented himself from the Court with no explanation or intimation about his absence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded against the petitioner and passed the order of forfeiture of the surety bond submitted by him and imposed a penalty of Rs.2,000.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner submitted the surety bond for a particular time which was only valid till 8-10-1990 and he was not responsible for the absence of accused (Amjid Masih) from the Court after said date. The contention of the learned counsel with regard to the validity of the bail bond after 8-10-1990 is not without force. The accused was granted interim bail till 8-10-1190 and the surety bond submitted by the petitioner was only valid till that date and could not be treated to have been extended automatically with the order of extension of interim bail. The personal bond submitted by Amjid Masih accused shall be deemed to be extended with the extension of interim bail but so far as the surety bond is concerned, it could not be given fresh life without the consent and knowledge of the surety. The order of extension of interim bail was passed in absence of the surety and therefore surety bond already submitted by him for a specific period could not be treated valid for the extended period. Amjid A Masih accused did not disappear during the period for which the surety bond was submitted by the petitioner, therefore, he was not responsible for the absence of the accused on 20-11-1990 and had no liability in this behalf. 'The revision petition is accepted and order of forfeiture of bond and imposition of the penalty to the petitioner is hereby set aside. ' N.H.Q./A-253/L Revision petition allowed.