2020 P Cr. L J 1536
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Abdul Hameed Baloch, JJ
SHAHIDA YASMIN ---Petitioner
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 10 of 2019, decided on 11th November, 2019.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S. 514 ---Forfeiture of surety bond---Death of surety ---Scope ---Petitioner sought a further
reduction of forfeited surety amount even though the Trial Court had already reduced the
same to 25% ---Surety/husband of the petitioner had died prior t o absconsion of accused,
therefore S. 514(6), Cr.P.C. was applicable which provided that the surety, on death, would be discharged from all the liabilities in respect of the bond---Proceedings initiated by Trial Court were contrary to the mandatory provisi on of subsection (6) of S. 514, Cr.P.C., thus
were of no legal effect --- Petition was disposed of accordingly.
Syed Muhammad Zahid for Petitioner.
Abdul Karim Malghani, State Counsel for the State.
Date of hearing: 5th November, 2019.
JUDGMENT
ABDUL H AMEED BALOCH, J. ---This order shall dispose of Criminal Revision
Petition No.10 of 2019 which has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.12.2018 ("impugned order") passed by the Special Judge ATC -II, Quetta ("trial court")
for waiving/reduction of surety amount.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 11.2.2016, the complainant Jan Muhammad along
with his brother was present in his guest room. At about 2:15 p.m. they heard explosion and came out of their house and found a hole near the gate. On query, the children of the
Muhallah told them that two persons came on motorcycle and thrown something which caused explosion.
3. The accused Fazal Rehman was granted bail by this court vide order dated 18.102017
in FIR No.15 2016. PS Kuchlak subject t o furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/ -. The
husband of the petitioner stood surety for accused and submitted Fard of his house as well as
deposited cash amount of Rs.50000/ -. Record transpires that despite submitting surety the
accused was not rel eased till 20.3.2018 due to his involvement in another case, however after
his release on bail the accused attended the trial court till 12.07.2018, whereafter he jumped
the bail.
4. The surety/husband of the petitioner had died on 22.12.2017.
5. The trial court forfeited the surety amount of Rs.3,00,000/ -. Whereupon the petitioner
moved an application for reduction of forfeited surety amount on humanitarian basis, which was partly allowed vide order dated 31.12.2018 by reducing surety up to 25%. Being
aggrieved of the lesser reduction in the forfeited surety the petitioner preferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, State counsel and have perused
the available record. The perusal of record reveals that the surety/husband of the petitioner had died prior to absconsion of the accused, therefore section 514(6), Cr.P.C. being applicable is reproduced hereinbelow:
"(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."
The afore- referred provision clearly manifests that if the surety died prior to forfeiture
of the bond, he shall be discharged from all the liabilities in respect of the bond, thus the proceedings initiated under section 514, Cr.P.C. by the trial court were contrary to the
mandatory provision of subsection (6) of section 514, Cr.P.C. In this regard reliance is placed on the case of Sultan v. State 2007 PCr.L.J 456.
For the above reasons, the forfei ture of the surety bond of deceased surety/husband of
petitioner by Special Judge ATC -II, Quetta and order dated 31.12.2018, passed by the
Special Judge ATC -II, Quetta for reduction of the forfeited surety amount are declared void
and of no legal effect. I n view of section 514(6), Cr.P.C. the surety bond of deceased
surety/husband of petitioner stands discharged. The cash amount of Rs.50,000/ - and Fard of
the property are ordered to be released to the petitioner.
The petition is disposed of in above terms.
SA/160/Bal. Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.