Muhammad Akhtar Vs THE STATE ETC .

Form No. HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P.No.80586 of 2022

Muhammad Akhtar vs. The State and another.

Sr. No. of order Date of order Order with signature of Judge, and that of Parties of counsel, where of proceeding of proceeding necessary

23.09.2026 Ch.Muhammad Saeed Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sadaqat Mahmood Butt, Special Prosecutor NAB.

Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, Muhammad Akhtar (petitioner) has called in question the vires of order dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Accountability Court-X, Lahore, whereby the surety amount of Rs.100,000/-, furnished by the petitioner was forfeited.

2.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner stood surety for accused Zakir Hussain in connection with his pre-arrest bail petition in Reference No.25/2021. Owing to the non- appearance of the accused, proceedings under Section 514, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) were initiated against the petitioner/surety which ultimately culminated in the impugned order.

3.Arguments heard. Record perused.

4.Before proceeding further, it would be advantageous to reproduce Section 514, Cr.P.C:-

“514. Procedure on forfeiture of bond.—(1) Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court by which a bond under this Code has been taken, or of a Court of a Magistrate of the first class, or, when the bond is for appearance before a Court, to the satisfaction of such Court, that such bond has been forfeited, the Court shall record the grounds of such proof, and may call upon any person bound by such bond to

W.P.No.80586 of 2022

pay the penalty thereof, or to show cause why it should not be paid.”

(2)If sufficient cause is not shown and the penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of the moveable or immovable property belonging to such person or his estate if he be dead.

(3)Such warrant may be executed within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court which issued it; and it shall authorize the attachment and sale of any moveable property belonging to such person without such limits, when endorsed by the District Officer (Revenue)] within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such property is found.

(4)If such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered by such attachment and sale, the person so bound shall be liable, by order of the Court which issued the warrant, to imprisonment in the civil jail for a term which may extend to six months.

(5)The Court may, at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only which shall not be more than half of surety amount of penalty.

(6)Where a surety to a bond dies before the bond is forfeited, his estate shall be discharged from all liability in respect of the bond

(7)When any person who has furnished security under section 106 or section 118 is convicted of an offence the commission of which constitutes a breach of the conditions of his bond, or of a bond executed in lieu of his bond under section 514 B, a certified copy of the judgment of the Court by which he was convicted of such offence may be used as evidence in proceedings under this section against his surety or sureties, and, if such certified copy is so used, the Court shall presume that such offence was committed by him unless the contrary is proved.”

(underlining and bold provided for emphasis)

5.In order to proceed under section 514 Cr.P.C a court is bound to adopt the following procedure.

(i)To get establish the fact that the bond under this Code furnished by the surety has been forfeited;

(ii)To record the grounds of the proof of such forfeiture;

Ghulam Raza vs. The State and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 473)

W.P.No.80586 of 2022

(iii)To call upon the person bound by such bond to pay the penalty thereof; or to show cause why it should not be paid;

(iv)If sufficient cause is not shown and penalty is not paid, the Court may proceed to recover the same by issuing a warrant for the attachment and sale of moveable property belonging to such person, or his estate, if he is dead (as endorsed by the District Officer (Revenue).

(vi)If such penalty is not paid and cannot be recovered by such attachment or sale, the person so bound shall be liable to imprisonment in Civil Jail for a term, which may extend to 6 months.

(underlining and bold are supplied for emphasis.)

The rationale behind the procedure for the proceedings under section 514 Cr.P.C was well explained by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Dildar’s case as under:- “....we find defect in the proceedings taken against the appellants is in this, namely, that no effort appears to have been made by the Courts below to enquire into the relevant matters affecting the decree of their responsibility. Sureties are not constituted as custodians of accused persons, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, it may generally be assumed that they do not gain by standing surety. The system of releasing accused persons on bail has several aspects of importance to the administration of justice generally. It avoids anything in the nature of punishment in advance, since restraint upon liberty even when applied for the purpose of ensuring that a case is duly enquired into and judged, necessarily involves loss of personal rights. At the same time, the release of accused persons on bail assists in the administration of justice by preventing overcrowding in the available spaces of imprisonment. Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who are in default, a balance has to be held between undue leniency, which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue sever to, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbors and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. Finally, in assessing to what extent the bond should be forfeited, the Court would have regard to such matters as whether the sureties have any direct interest through financial or blood connection with the accused, whether they have connived at or procured the absence of the accused, and whether they have done their best to secure his attendance. These matters have not been enquired into by the Courts below.”

6.It is well-recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence arising out of the maxim communi Dildar and another vs. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47) Irshad Khan vs. The State (2026 SCMR 87)

W.P.No.80586 of 2022

observantia non est recedendum that when the law prescribes a specific procedure, it must be followed accordingly; any deviation renders the act questionable.

7.In Noman Mansoor’s case4, Supreme Court while dealing with the question of show-cause notice in the context of section 439 Cr.P.C, held as under:- “Once the law prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done as such, therefore, a separate notice as required by subsection (2) of section 439, Cr.P.C was mandatory, without which no order should have been passed, hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable.”

(underlining and bold are supplied for emphasis)

8.As per the statutory provision and ratio of the above cases, it is abundantly clear that the issuance of a show- cause notice is a sine qua non before forfeiture of a surety bond; the person bound by such bond is required to be afforded an opportunity as to why the penalty thereof should not be imposed. It appears that section 514 Cr.P.C is a complete code unto itself regarding due process to be followed. It evinces from the record that only a notice for appearance of surety was issued in compliance whereof he entered appearance but requisite show-cause notice was never issued to him. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable being violative of the statutory provision as also being offensive to 5inalienable right of treatment in accordance with law, 6right of fair trial, 7right to hold and enjoy property and 8equal protection of law guaranteed as fundamental rights.

Noman Mansoor alias Nomi and another vs. The State and others (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 805)

Article 4, of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Article 23 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973

W.P.No.80586 of 2022

9.In view of the foregoing, we set-aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2022 However, the learned trial court may proceed afresh strictly in terms of section 514 Cr.P.C, if the dictates of justice so require, in the facts and circumstances of the case at this stage.

(AALIA NEELUM) (MUHAMMAD AMJAD PERVAIZ)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

This order has been pronounced on 23.09.2026, dictated, prepared and signed on 24.09.2026 M.J.Mehmood

Approved for reporting

(AALIA NEELUM) (MUHAMMAD AMJAD PERVAIZ)

CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE

W.P.No.80586 of 2022