1993 P Cr (PLP)

S. 514

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302

Forfeiture of bond

After the sureties had furnished surety bonds, the accused absconded, went abroad and became fugitive from law

No leniency, therefore, could be shown towards Sureties

Full amount of Rs.50,000 of the bonds, however, need not have been required from them and their bonds were forfeited to the extent of Rs:25,000 each. Ch. Muhammad Arshad Mehlo for Petitioners. Ghazanfar Ijaz Chaudhry for the State. Date of hearing: 15th February; 1993. This revision petition filed under section 439, Cr.P.C. challenges the order, dated 6-8-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot whereby he forfeited the bail bonds of both the petitioners in the sum of Rs.50,000 each as they stood sureties for Mehmood Akhtar accused in a murder case.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are; that the petitioners stood surety for one Mahmood Akhtar accused in a murder case registered through F.I.R. No.102, dated 10-7-1988 with Police Station Sabzpeer, District Sialkot. The accused for whom the petitioners stood surety absconded and did not appear in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioners were called upon to appear in the Court and on the orders of the Court they appeared and were ordered to deposit Rs.50,000 each as penalty because they stood surety for the said accused. Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had stood surety for Mahmood Akhtar accused on humanitarian grounds, otherwise they got no benefit for this act. It was also argued that the learned lower Court should have kept the balance between undue leniency and undue severity as the sureties are directed through mere benevolence on behalf of the accused.

4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State repelled the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the order of the learned lower Court.

5. I have considered the arguments advanced by both sides and have also perused the record. I find that although the release of accused persons on bail assists in the administration of justice by preventing overcrowding in the available spaces of imprisonment, but in dealing with the cases of sureties who are in default, a balance has to be held between undue leniency and undue severity, which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a large number of cases. In this case I find that the accused Mahmood Akhtar who was involved in a case under section; 302, P.P.C. has absconded and has gone abroad after being released on bail, by the learned trial Court. In view of these circumstances while assessing to what extent the bond should be forfeited, I consider that this is not a case where leniency can' be shown towards the sureties as after they furnished surety bonds the accused absconded and has gone abroad. He is now fugitive from law.

6. Taking all the circumstances into account, I find that both the petitioners had indeed forfeited their bonds but I consider at the same time that the full amount of the bonds need not have been required from them and that, in all the circumstances, their default will be adequately punished by requiring each of them to pay a sum of Rs.25,000 and this revision petition is allowed to that extent. The bonds shall be forfeited to the extent of Rs.25,000 each. N.H.Q./G-124/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.