1999 P Cr (PLP)

Sh. Muhammad Raheem for the State. Date of hearing: 26th November, 1998. The petitioner has assailed the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari, who vide his order, dated 3-8-1995 forfeited the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner, in favour of the State and directed that full amount of the said bonds amounting to Rs.20,000 be paid by him as surety by way of penalty for his default, within a period of one month.

2. Briefly the facts which has led to the filing of the criminal revision are that Muqaddar Ali and others were arraigned as accused persons in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.125 of 1995, dated 14-5-1995 with Police Station Saddar Vehari under section 324/447/148/149/337-A(i)/337-A(ii)/337-F(ii), P.P.C. Muqaddar Ali and others filed pre-arrest bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari, Muhammad Hanif son of Muhammad Rafique one of the accused was granted interim bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 with one surety. The petitioner volunteered to become surety and submitted the bail bonds in the Court in the said amount on 17-5-1995 undertaking to produce the accused -Muhammad Hanif on each and every date of hearing. The bail application remained pending for a considerable time and was ultimately decided on 10-7 1995. Muhammad Hanif accused on the said date slipped away from the Court during the hearing of arguments. Show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why full amount of the bail bonds may not be recovered from him, as penalty, as he failed to comply with the conditions of the bail bonds.

3. It was held by the learned Court that the duty of the surety was not only to produce the accused in the Court but to ensure his presence till the announcement of the order. The reasons given by the petitioner was not found justifiable and as such the bail bonds furnished by him were forfeited in favour of the State and full amount of the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000 was directed to be paid by the petitioner as penalty within one month from the date of the order.

4. Learned counsel has contended that the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Vehari; suffers from basic infirmity and that the petitioner as surety discharged his duty towards the Court by producing the accused-Muhammad Hanif on 10-7-1995 when the pre-arrest bail application was fixed for hearing. Thereafter, if the accused slipped away from the Court it was an act for which the accused himself was responsible and the petitioner could not be burdened by forfeiture of bail bonds with the direction to pay its full amount. Learned counsel in support of his arguments has relied on Shafiq Ahmed and others v. The State 1982 PCr.LJ 623.

5. Learned counsel for the State did not say much to contest this position of law.

6. I nave considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and I am persuaded to agree with him. The surety is bound by the conditions of the bond. One of the condition of the bonds is that he shall produce the accused on every date of hearing to which the case is adjourned. The petitioner, as surety, faithfully discharged his obligations by producing the accused, Muhammad Hanif, on 10-7-1995. It was during the course of arguments of the bail application that Muhammad Hanif slipped away from the Court premises. The lapse, if any, was committed by the accused-Muhammad Hanif for which he could have been charged and punished, if otherwise permissible under the law or in the alternative proceedings for disobedience of the order of the Court could have been taken, because once having surrendered himself before the Court, he was under an obligation to remain there till discharged or permitted by the Court to leave. The view taken by the learned Sessions Judge that the surety is not only bound to produce the accused on every date of hearing but also to ensure his attendance till an order is passed relieving him from the proceedings, fixed for that day, is very much contrary to the conditions incorporated to the bail/surety bonds. The accused, once he applies for bail before arrest, has to surrender himself before the Court and if interim bail is granted is under no obligation to appear on every date of hearing unless specifically ordered by the Court. If such an order is there, the surety would definitely be liable to produce him, but once produced he is discharged of his obligation for that particular day. The view taken by the Sessions Judge therefore, is erroneous in the eyes of law.

7. Resultantly the order which entailed the forfeiture of the bonds and direction to pay the full amount of Rs.20,000 cannot be sustained. The revision petition is accepted and the order of the Sessions Judge, Vehari, dated 3-8-1995 is set aside. N.H.Q./F-77/L Revision Petition accepted.