Forfeiture of bond

2020 SCMR 1855 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 497, 499, 513 & 514Bail, grant ofBond of accused and sureties, quantum ofScopeForfeiture of bond

Scope.

2020 MLD 916 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondVerifier of surety, status ofExpunction of remarksMaxim: Audi alteram partemScope

Petitioner sought expunction of adverse remarks recorded against him by the Sessions Judge in the proceedings initiated against the sureties under S.514, Cr.P.C.

Petitioner had verified antecedents of sureties being Nazim of the concerned Union Council

Sessions Judge had observed that the conduct of petitioner was very dirty; that he had performed the role of tout and that not only he had cheated the sureties but had also tried to practice fraud upon the court by verifying such sureties who did not enjoy good reputation, therefore, the Sessions Judge directed the Secretary Local Government to initiate action against the petitioner

Validity

Observations of Sessions Judge were without any backing and record

No responsibility was placed on the verifier of sureties while granted bail to accused persons

Role of verifier of the bail bonds was limited to the extent that he verified the sureties to be local residents

Court had to determine as to whether the sureties were reliable and men of means

Petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to justify his position, therefore the observations were hit by Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Adverse remarks as record by the Sessions Judge against the petitioner were expunged by the High Court.

2020 PCrLJN 202 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondForfeiture of bond executed to appear before High Court by the Trial CourtScope

Petitioner, a surety, assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby it, being surety, was directed to deposit the surety amount in government treasury

Contention of petitioner was that he had executed a bond to appear before the High Court therefore, only High Court had the jurisdiction to forfeit the bond

Validity

Held; object of obtaining bail bond was to secure the attendance of the accused in court, where he was called upon and in case of failure to appear coercive measures could be taken against him including forfeiture of bond, attachment, sale of property of the surety, etc

Where superior court took a bond of an accused for appearance before the court, that meant the Trial Court, where he had to appear after getting bail

Revision petition was dismissed.

2019 YLR 2696 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondProcedureMitigating circumstancesScope

Petitioner assailed order of Trial Court whereby it had imposed upon the petitioner half amount of surety bond as penalty

Petitioner contended that she stood surety for her brother who disappeared only for two dates; that she was a maidservant who worked in different houses to earn her livelihood and that she had not received any show-cause notice under S. 514, Cr.P.C.

Validity

Held, present was one of hardships and there were mitigating circumstances

Accused had already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and was behind bars to serve out sentence awarded by the Trial Court

Application was allowed and impugned order was set aside to the extent of surety amount.

2019 PCrLJN 147 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondConsiderationsBalance between "undue leniency" and "undue severity"Poor financial condition of suretySurety without monetary gainScopePetitioner stood surety for five accused persons, one of them was acquittedFour accused persons jumped bail and went abroadTrial Court issued notice to the petitioner and after hearing him forfeited the entire amount of suretyPlea of petitioner was that he was a poor person and stood surety without any monetary gainValidity

Court had to look into certain facts with regard to quantum of amount to be forfeited and a balance had to be kept in between "undue leniency" and "undue severity"

Petitioner stood surety for the accused persons in the name of God and financial position of surety was relevant factor for determination of quantum of amount to be forfeited

High Court reduced the amount of surety accordingly. [Paras. 2, 5, 6 & 9 of the judgment]

2019 MLD 54 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondSurety, responsibility ofScope

Petitioners/sureties contended that they along with the accused came to appear before the Trial Court but the Police arrested and produced them before the Trial Court who wrongly committed them to judicial lock-up

Validity

Record revealed that when the accused did not appear before the Trial Court; his bail facility was cancelled /recalled by the Trial Court

Notice under S.514, Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioners and the case was adjourned for the next month

Petitioners and the accused again remained absent and the Trial Court forfeited the surety amount of petitioners without obtaining reply to the notice under S.514, Cr.P.C.

Petitioners appeared on the next date of hearing before the Trial Court, but were arrested

Trial Court had committed the petitioners to judicial lock-up in a hasty manner and without following the laid down procedure

Purpose of standing surety of the accused was the production of the accused for whom surety was given

When the accused had appeared before the Trial Court, the liability of the surety was over and the matter rested between the Trial Court and the accused

Trial Court ought to have expunged/recalled its previous order as the accused was committed to judicial lock-up and responsibility of the sureties ended

No valid ground was available to the Trial Court to commit the petitioners to judicial lock-up after appearance of the accused in the Court

High Court set aside impugned orders passed by the Trial Court to the extent of the petitioners/sureties

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

2019 YLRN 10 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondScopePetitioner stood surety for accused, who later on went underground and was not traceablePetitioner's contention was that a compromise was effected between legal heirs of the deceased and the accusedValidity

Compromise having been effected between the parties, however, genuineness of the same was yet be determined by the Trial Court

Petitioner had made out a case for lenient view

Chief Court accepted the revision petition and reduced the surety amount.

2018 PCrLJ 604 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 514 & 561-AForfeiture of bondIssuing of show-cause notice to suretiesScopeCase under Ss. 365-B & 34, P.P.C. was registered by a person regarding abduction of his wife

Said abductee, after recovery, in her statement recorded under S. 164, Cr.P.C. showed her willingness to go with her cousin/petitioner

Judicial Magistrate allowed her to go with one petitioner subject to his furnishing of personal bond in the sum of rupees five lac to ensure safety and security of abductee and to produce her before any court as and when required

Petitioners submitted requisite surety bonds in the court and she was handed over to one petitioner

Subsequently, the lady was murdered by her husband and case was registered against him

Judicial Magistrate forfeited the bonds submitted by the petitioners and show cause notices were served upon them

Petitioners submitted their written reply and consequently, the petitioners were directed to deposit one third portion of the amount of surety bonds

Petitioners filed a revision petition against the said order, which was dismissed

Validity

Present criminal revision petition was converted into petition under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. by the High Court for its disposal on merit

Record showed that petitioners stood sureties for safety and security of the deceased lady and in that respect they furnished personal surety bonds before the court; however, they failed to discharge their legal obligation for which they stood sureties

If there were any issues regarding her safety and security, then they should have applied to the court concerned for discharge of their surety bond

Replies of petitioners to the show-cause notices showed that they had allowed deceased lady to go to her home where she was murdered by her husband

Circumstances suggested that petitioners failed in performance of their legal obligations/duties which they willingly accepted by submitting surety bonds; in such circumstances, petitioners could not be absolved from their responsibilities as due to their irresponsible attitude and uncalled for conduct, an innocent human being lost her life

Findings rendered by both the courts below were based on proper appreciation of material available on record of the case, and the law applicable thereto, thus warranted no interference

Petition was dismissed accordingly.

2017 YLR 971 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondIssuing of notice to suretiesScopeAccused for whom the petitioner stood surety, had been acquitted and sureties were discharged of their liabilitiesEffect

Once a person was discharged from the liability by clear and unambiguous judgment, he could not be later on held responsible for certain appearance of accused who had been acquitted in the same case

Order passed by Trial Court was set-aside accordingly.

2016 PCrLJ 1812 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondPetitioners stood sureties for appearance of accusedTrial Court passed release order, soon after submission of said bonds by the petitioners as well as accused persons

Trial Court, subsequently, cancelled bail facility granted to accused, and issued notices to the petitioners and non-bailable warrants to accused

Trial Court through impugned order, ordered for forfeiture of bonds of the petitioners; directed for recovery of Rs.10,000,00 from the petitioners

Trial Court, did nothing against accused before taking action against the petitioners

Cancellation of bail facility to accused was a grave mistake of the Trial Court, as Trial Court though had powers to cancel the bail facility, but only after arrest of accused and never before such arrest

Cancellation of bail facility to accused, practically rendered the surety bonds submitted by accused discharged

Such action of the Trial Court benefited the accused

Trial Court could issue non-bailable warrants and could initiate proceedings for forfeiture of the bonds of accused without cancelling the bail facility to accused

Issuing of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners, and forfeiture of the amount of surety bonds of the petitioner, was bad in the eye of law, as said action had been initiated after cancelling bail facility of accused

Trial Court must have questioned police concerned for failure to produce accused in court

Impugned order, was set aside, in circumstances.

2014 MLD 1806 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 514Forfeiture of bondIssuing of notice to suretiesObject and purpose

Accused for whom the petitioners stood sureties, having failed to appear before the Trial Court when summoned, court issued process against petitioners/sureties for producing accused before it

Petitioners expressed their inability to produce accused as he had gone abroad in connection with his livelihood

Court proceeded against the petitioners and fined them to pay Rs.1,00,000 each as penalty for the bond, which they had executed and submitted in the court

Approach and conclusion of the Trial Court was not legal and rational, as non-appearance or non-production of accused was beyond the control of the petitioners, in view of various restrictions imposed by the foreign masters on overseas Pakistanis working abroad

Orders passed by the courts below were not based on objective interpretation of S.514, Cr.P.C.

Petitioners had kept on their efforts to produce accused before the court, and they succeeded in their efforts to produce accused before the Trial Court, who surrendered himself before the Trial Court and was on pre-arrest bail

Object and purpose for issuing notices to sureties, was that accused be made available before the Trial Court, so that he be brought to justice

Accused having himself appeared before the court, order of forfeiture of bond, would not be proper

Accused had not absconded from the court intentionally, or with any mala fide intention, but for his livelihood

Accused left Pakistan for abroad for work, and might have remitted foreign exchange for the country

Accused should not have been treated like those who intentionally went into hiding in order to avoid the legal proceedings initiated against him

Accused who was handicapped by some compelling reasons, should be treated objectively and with some leniency

Impugned orders were set aside, with direction that penalty amount recovered from the petitioners/sureties be returned to them.

1994 PLD 153 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 514Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324/34Forfeiture of bond

Accused for whom the petitioner had stood surety had surrendered on the following day of the passing of the impugned order and the case had been compromised between the parties

Petitioner, therefore, was entitled to same leniency in the matter of imposition of penalty

Penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed on the petitioner by the Magistrate was reduced to Rs.4,000 in circumstances.