ORDER
SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,
Cr.
Misc. Appl. No.134 of 2015
____________________________________________________________
Date Order with signature of
Judge.
1. For orders on M.A. No.6871/15,
2. For Katcha Peshi.
3. For hearing of M.A. No.4143/15.
Mr. S.M. Intikhab
Alam,
adv; for the applicant/surety.
Mr.
Abdullah Rajput, A.P.G.
_________________
14.09.2015.
1. Granted.
2 & 3. Through
this criminal Misc. Application the applicant/surety Mehmood
has called in question order dated 21.05.2015 passed by the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, South Karachi, whereby
learned trial Court in S.C. Nos.1210 of 2013 arising out of FIR No.197 of 2013
registered at Police Station SITE-A, Karachi under Sections 302/324/34 PPC,
imposed fine of Rs.75,000/- upon the surety as accused Akbar Saeed, after grant of bail said accused did not appear
before the trial Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant/surety has mainly
contended that surety, Mehmood stood surety for the
accused Akber Saeed, on
humanitarian ground and requested for reduction of surety fine imposed by the
trial Court.
Mr.
Abdullah Rajput, advocate appeared on behalf of the state and argued that
accused Akber Saeed, is
required in murder case. He was granted bail by this Court a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-. Thereafter, application
was submitted for reduction of surety amount and surety was reduced by this
Court from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.
It is further submitted that accused Akber Saeed, after release from jail has absconded away till
today and the trial has been delayed.
It
appears that learned trial Court vide order dated 21.05.2015 has imposed fine
of Rs.75,000/- upon the surety. The
relevant portion of the order of the trial Court is reproduced as under:-
“After releasing on bail, accused made good escape
and never appeared before the Court on single date of hearing.
Learned advocate for surety relied on 2015 MLD
255, but in my humble view the facts of the present case are distinguishable
with the case law produced by learned advocate for surety. However, in the
interest of justice I imposed Rs.75,000/- fine upon the surety. The surety is
directed to pay fine amount within a period of 15 days without further delay.”
It
is matter of record that accused Akbar Saeed is
involved in murder case and he was granted bail by this Court in the sum of
Rs.3,00,000/-; but on the application of the accused, surety amount was reduced
to Rs.1,00,000/-. Applicant/surety Mehmood stood surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and accused
Akbar Saeed was released. Thereafter, he did not
appear before the trial Court. It
appears that trial Court has imposed fine of Rs.75,000/-. In the case of Zeeshan
Kazmi Vs. The State reported in PLD 1997 SC 267, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“We may observe that it has now become common that
the accused persons involved in heinous offences, if succeed, in obtaining
bail, jump the bail bonds. To check the
above tendency and to provide deterrent special provisions have been enacted
and/or are being enacted in the special statutes prescribing the minimum amount
of bail bond for example, under section 5(7) of the Offences in Respect of
Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, it has been provided that the bail
amount would not be less than twice of the amount involved in the commission of
the offence. Keeping in view the above
bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the
lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the unprecedented continuous
steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, the Courts
should not show any undue leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. Their approach should be dynamic and
progressive-oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons jumps
bail bonds. There is no legal
requirement that full bail bond amount should not be forfeited, on the
contrary, once an accused person jumps bail bond, the entire surety amount
becomes liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating
circumstances. In the case of Jamroze Khan v. The State (supra), the Additional Sessions
Judge concerned forfeited the full amount of surety bond amount, namely,
Rs.50,000 in a murder case. The High
Court as well as this Court declined to interfere with the above order. In the other cases, referred to hereinabove,
the High Courts had reduced the forfeited amount, but this Court declined to
interfere with the same”.
In
view of the above no case for reduction of fine of Rs.75,000/- is made
out. No illegality has been found in the
impugned order. Once an accused person jumps bail bond, the entire surety
amount becomes liable to be forfeited in absence of any mitigating
circumstances. No mitigating circumstance in this matter has been pointed. Trial Court has already shown undue leniency
while forfeiting bail bond amount. Therefore, instant criminal Misc.
Application is dismissed. Trial Court is
directed to take steps for recovery of fine imposed upon the surety, in
accordance with law.
Shahid J
U D G E