1993 P Cr (PLP)

S. 514

Forfeiture of bond

Accused for whom petitioner stood surety, having failed to appear on date of hearing, bail bond of petitioner was forfeited

Petitioner/surety, who was father of accused had contended that accused could not appear in Court as after her release on bail, she was kidnapped by co-accused for which petitioner had lodged F.I.R.

Petitioner, did not challenge order forfeiting his bond, but had prayed for lenient view-- Petitioner, being surety of his daughter, had taken his responsibility altogether too lightly, but it did not appear that petitioner ether gained any benefit from standing surety for his daughter or he was in any way connected with criminal activity of his daughter or with her escape

Amount of bond was reduced accordingly. Ch. Waheed-ud-Din Virk for Petitioner. Mian Muhammad Bashir for the State. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1992. This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 27-2-1991 passed by Khawaja Aurangzeb, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad by which the bail bond of the petitioner was forfeited and was ordered to deposit Rs.25,000.

2. The petitioner stood surety of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar, his daughter for Rs.25,000 in case F.I.R. No.13/1988 Police Station Chak Jhumra under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and after her release on bail the accused Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar was again abducted on 30-5-1989 by her co-accused Imdad Khan alongwith others for which the petitioner had lodged F.I.R. No.387/89 and due to abduction of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar she could not attend the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad on 27-2-1991. The learned Additional Sessions Judge issued non bailable warrants of arrest of Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar and also made the impugned order i.e. forfeiture of the petitioner's surety bond of Rs.25,000 and directed him to deposit the same in the Government Treasury. It is contended that the accused Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar could not appear in the Court as she had been kidnapped by her co-accused and an F.I.R. No.387/89 was lodged by the petitioner. Learned counsel has not challenged the impugned order seriously, but has prayed for a lenient view. On the face of it, it seems clear that the petitioner being father of the accused had stood surety for her, but he certainly appeared to have taken his responsibility altogether too lightly. It does not. appear that the petitioner either gained any benefit from standing surety for Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar, his daughter nor he appeared to be in any way connected with her criminal activity or with her escape. Taking all these circumstances into account I find that the petitioner had indeed forfeited his bond, but I consider at the same time that the full amount of the bond need not have been required from him and that in all the events the default will be adequately punished by requiring him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000 and I alter the impugned order accordingly. The petitioner shall deposit the forfeited amount of Rs.5,000 within one month in the concerned Court. H.B.T./A-255/L Order accordingly.