Sher Rehman vs State.

2013 P Cr. L J 1028

[Peshawar]

Before Waqar Ahmad Seth, J

SHER RAHMAN and others---Petitioners

Versus

The STATE---Respondent

Criminal Revision No.82-P of 2012, decided on 12th October, 2012.

(a)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 514---Bail bond, forfeiture of---Reduction in surety amount---Responsibility of surety for appearance of the accused---Scope---Both the petitioners stood surety for accused, who was granted bail---While on bail, accused committed murder of his co-accused and absconded---Bail bonds of Rs.80,000 each submitted by petitioners were forfeited to the extent of Rs.50,000 each-- -Validity---Record showed that intention of petitioners was clear and they produced accused before the court and trial was under process, when accused committed murder of his co-accused and absconded---Responsibility of petitioners was fulfilled the moment accused started attending the court/trial---Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of abscondence of accused and the financial status of petitioners, one of whom was a wage labourer and the other a low paid pensioner, the amount of Rs.50,000 seemed to be too harsh---Revision petition was allowed, amount of surety forfeited was reduced from Rs.50,000 each to Rs.10,000 each and petitioners were directed to continue making efforts for production of accused and Trial Court was advised to further half the forfeited amount, if accused was produced in a month's time.

(b)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 514---Forfeiture of bail bond---Principles---While dealing with cases of sureties who might be in default, a judicial mind was supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency on one hand, which might lead to abuse of procedure and interference with course of justice, and undue severity on the other, which might lead to unwillingness on part of neighbours and friends to come forward (to stand as sureties)---While maintaining such a balance, courts were required to hold some sort of balance while determining as to what extent a bond was to be forfeited.

Hassan Gul Masood Khalil for Petitioner.

Sabir for the State.

Date of hearing: 12th October, 2012.

JUDGMENT

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.---Petitioners, who stood sureties for the accused Suleman have filed this Criminal Revision Petition against the impugned order dated 4-5-2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Charsadda in case F.I.R. No.1683 dated 19-12-2008 under section 324/382/411, P.P.C. Police Station, Serdheri whereby the bail bonds of Rs.80,000 were forfeited to the extent of Rs.50,000 each, hence this criminal revision petition.

Arguments heard and record perused.

2.Both the petitioners stood surety for producing accused Suleman who was charged and arrested in an attempted murder and dacoity case, bail was granted to the said accused on compromise basis. The record shows that both the petiti6ners produced the said accused Suleman for the purpose of trial and during the trial of case F.I.R. No.1683 dated 19-12-2008 the accused Suleman committed murder of his co-accused and thus absconded. The petitioners fulfilled their obligations and produced Suleman for a trial in case F.I.R. No.1683 dated 19-12-2008 but due to F.I.R. No.596 dated 23-11-2011 under section 302/34, P.P.C. the accused absconded himself, therefore, the petitioners seem to be helpless to that extent.

3.No doubt a trend has been developed that accused in heinous offences obtained bail and thereafter bounces the same in the anticipation that the court will take lenient view in confiscation of the surety amount but in this particular case the situation is different all together. The intention of the petitioners is quite clear, they produced Suleman accused, who was attending the court and the trial was under process when another F.I.R. was registered in which the said accused Suleman absconded.

4.I have seen the identity cards of the petitioners as well as the address of the accused given in F.I.R. No.596 dated 23-11-2011 which are one and the same and in our society the humanitarian aspects do require a help in the time of need. People come forward to stand security for accused out of ordinary fellow feeling and invariably without any ambition for gain of benefit, but for mere benevolence. Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who may be in default, a judicial mind is supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency, which may be leading to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice. Whereas, on the other hand, undue severity may lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. While maintaining this balance, the Courts are required to hold some sort of balance while determining to what extent a bond is to be forfeited.

5.Admittedly, the petitioners undertook the responsibilities to produce the accused before the court when required by submitting the bonds but the said responsibility was fulfilled the

moment accused Suleman started attending the court/trial, thus, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of abscondance of the accused in another murder case registered vide F.I.R. No.596 dated 23-11-2011 and the financial status of the petitioners, which shows that petitioner No.1. is a daily wages laborer while petitioner No.2 is a retired low paid pensioner, the amount of Rs.50,000 seems to be two harsh.

6.Under the circumstances of this case, I reduce the amount of tawan from Rs. 50,000 to Rs.10,000 each to be paid by the petitioners before the lower forum on the next date of hearing. Anyway, the petitioners are directed to continue making efforts for the production of the accused for whom they stood as surety and if they produced him in a month time, the trial Court is advised to further reduce to half of the forfeited amount, mentioned above. This criminal revision petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

MWA/377/P Petition dismissed.