2004 PLP 1240 (YLR)

S. 514

Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406/420

Abscondance of accused-- Surety bond, forfeiture of

Surety furnished bail bond

Petitioner had attested said bail bond

Accused having absconded, proceedings were initiated against the surety in terms of S. 514, Cr. P. C. and his non-bailable warrants for arrest were issued

Said warrants came back with the report that surety had gone abroad and Trial Court proceeded to issue notice to the petitioner holding that petitioner being attesting witness, was also bound by terms of bail bond

Notice was ordered to be issued to the petitioner directing him to produce surety before Court or to make payment of amount of the bond, failing which legal action would be taken against him

Validity

Trial Court had passed impugned order wholly without jurisdiction as petitioner who had only attested the bond as witness, by no stretch of imagination could be bound by terms of bail bond-- High Court allowing revision set aside order passed by Trial Court whereby notice was issued to the petitioner. Syed Wosat-ul-Hassan Shah for Petitioner. Atif Hussain Naqvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 21st January, 2004. Ishfaq Ahmad son of Muhammad Rafiq was an accused of commission of offences under sections 406/420, P.P.C. vide a case F. I. R. No. 192 dated 30-5-2000, at Police Station Margla, Islamabad. He was granted pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Islamabad, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.40,000 with one surety. One Haroon Ahmad son of Muhammad Rafiq, stood surety and furnished the bail bonds. Khan Iftikhar, petitioner, attested the said bonds as a witness. As it happened, said accused person absconded and proceedings were initiated against Haroon Ahmad, surety in terms of section

514. Cr.P.C. His non-bailable warrants for his arrest were issued which came back with the report that said Haroon Ahmad has gone to U.K. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad, proceeded to issue notice to the petitioner on 13-9-2003 holding that attesting witnesses are also bound by the terms of the bail bond. Notice was ordered to be issued directing the petitioner to produce the surety before the Court or to make payment of the amount of bond, failing which legal action shall be taken against him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order on the face of it is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel appearing for State finds it difficult to defend the impugned order.

3. I feel no hesitation in agreeing with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order wholly without jurisdiction. The term of the bail granting order was furnishing of a bail bond by the said absconding accused with one surety in the like amount. The petitioner only attested the bond as witness. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the petitioner can be bound by the terms of the bond. Needless to add that the consensus of judicial authority in the Subcontinent is that such an attestation does not even constitute an estoppal. This criminal revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 13-9-2003 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad inasmuch as it directs issuance of said notice to the petitioner-witness is set aside. H.B.T./K-7/L Revision allowed.