What happens to surety if accused runs away?
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case dealt with what happens when a person stands surety (guarantor) for an accused person's bail, and the accused then absconds instead of showing up for trial.
Atta Muhammad had signed a bail bond worth Rs. 200,000 to guarantee that an accused man named Alamgir, facing a murder charge, would appear for his trial. Alamgir instead fled and was declared a proclaimed offender. The trial court forfeited the full bail bond amount and ordered recovery proceedings against Atta Muhammad, including issuing a non-bailable arrest warrant against him and arranging for his property to be auctioned to recover the money.
Atta Muhammad challenged this before the Lahore High Court, arguing he was elderly, unwell, and had only stood surety out of kindness, with no financial motive, and had tried his best to locate the absconding accused.
The High Court agreed that demanding the full Rs. 200,000 was too harsh given that the surety had acted out of benevolence rather than self-interest. It partially accepted his petition and reduced the penalty from Rs. 200,000 to Rs. 30,000, to be paid within two weeks, failing which it could be recovered through coercive measures.
This case matters because it shows courts can exercise discretion and compassion when penalizing sureties, rather than mechanically enforcing the full bond amount, especially considering the surety's intentions and personal circumstances.
یہ مقدمہ اس صورتحال سے متعلق ہے جب کوئی شخص ملزم کی ضمانت کے لیے کفیل بنتا ہے اور ملزم عدالت میں پیش ہونے کے بجائے مفرور ہو جاتا ہے۔
عطا محمد نے دو لاکھ روپے کا ضمانتی بانڈ اس بات کی ضمانت کے طور پر دیا تھا کہ قتل کے مقدمے کا ملزم عالمگیر اپنے مقدمے کی سماعت کے لیے عدالت میں پیش ہوگا۔ لیکن عالمگیر فرار ہو گیا اور اسے اشتہاری مجرم قرار دے دیا گیا۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے مکمل ضمانتی بانڈ کی رقم ضبط کر لی اور عطا محمد کے خلاف وصولی کی کارروائی کا حکم دیا، جس میں اس کے خلاف ناقابل ضمانت وارنٹ گرفتاری جاری کرنا اور رقم کی وصولی کے لیے اس کی جائیداد کی نیلامی کا انتظام کرنا شامل تھا۔
عطا محمد نے اس فیصلے کو لاہور ہائی کورٹ میں چیلنج کیا اور دلیل دی کہ وہ بوڑھا اور علیل ہے، اس نے محض نیک نیتی کی بنا پر کفالت کی تھی، اس کا کوئی مالی مفاد شامل نہیں تھا، اور اس نے مفرور ملزم کو ڈھونڈنے کی پوری کوشش کی تھی۔
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
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 Kehror Pacca 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-bond whereafter 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