What happens to surety if accused runs away?

PLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Lahore) 783
[Multan Bench Multan]

Present: Syed Ejaz Hussain Shah, J.

ATTA MUHAMMAD--Petitioner

versus

STATE--Respondent

Crl. Rev. No. 453 of 2010, decided on 1.7.2011.

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

----Ss. 412, 435 & 439--Forfeited bail bond--Proceedings for recovery of forfeited amount were started--Order for issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest was passed against surety--Challenge to--Petitioner appeared to have stood surety not for any monetary gain but out of benevolence, therefore, ordering of recovery of full surety amount was quite harsh, hence, while accepting revision petition partly amount of penalty of specific amount imposed by trial Court was reduced which if not paid by petitioner shall be recoverable through coercive measures--Revision petition partly accepted.         [P. 784] A

Petitioner in person.

M/s. Muhammad Maalik Khan Langah and Muhammad Bilal Gurmani, Advocates for Petitioner.

Mr. Muhammad Abdul Wadood, Deputy Prosecutor General Punjab for State.

Date of hearing: 1.7.2011.

Order

The petitioner Atta Muhammad s/o Muhammad Zaman Khan stood surety for the accused Alamgir in case FIR No. 326/2008 registered at Police Station Saddar KehrorPacca District Lodhran under Sections 302, 34 PPC by filing his bail-bond to the tune of Rs.200,000/-. The accused Alamgir, however, jumped the bail during the trial and he was declared a proclaimed offender. Vide order dated 06.05.2010, the learned trial Court/the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca forfeited the bail-bondwhereafter proceedings for the recovery of the forfeited amount of rupees two Lac were started. On 02.10.2011, an order was passed for issuing a non-bail-able warrant of arrest against the surety/petitioner and the report of the DDOR regarding the auction of the property of the petitioner was also called for.

2.  The petitioner through this criminal revision petition has assailed the order dated 06.05.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeiting the bail-bond as well as the order dated 02.10.2010, mentioned supra.

3.  The learned counsel for the petitioner have contended that the petitioner had stood surety for the accused Alamgir on humanitarian grounds when he was assured that the accused would never absent but subsequently the accused had jumped the bail and in-spite of his best efforts, the surety could not find out the accused. It is contended that the petitioner is quite an old/ailing person who cannot pay the forfeited amount of Rs. 200,000/-. The learned counsel have prayed for the reduction of the penalty amount.

4.  Conversely, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed the petition maintaining that the petitioner had stood surety for an accused in a heinous offence and the said accused after jumping the bail is still absconding.

5.  The surety/petitioner has appeared today. He is quite an old man and he also appears to be ailing. Reports are already there on the record that he is seriously ill. Since, the petitioner appears to have stood surety not for any monetary gain but out of benevolence, therefore, the ordering of the recovery of the full surety amount i.e. Rs. 200,000/- is quite harsh, hence, while accepting this revision petition partly the amount of penalty of Rs. 200,000/- imposed by the learned trial Court is reduced to Rs. 30,000/- which if not paid by the petitioner in the learned trial Court within a fortnight, shall be recoverable through coercive measures.

(R.A.)  Petition accepted