Summary: Background: The petitioner stood as a surety for an accused, Muhammad Siddique, in a criminal case under sections 324/341, 337-D, 337-F(3), 34 of the Azad Penal Code (APC), and section 15(2) of the Arms Act. Upon the accused's failure to appear, the Additional Sessions Judge of Kotli ordered the forfeiture of the surety bond worth Rs. 10,00,000 and initiated proceedings for the attachment and auction of the petitioner’s property. ----Issues: 1- Whether the order of the Additional Sessions Judge for forfeiture of the bond and attachment of property was passed without due process. 2- Whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain or contest the forfeiture before the property attachment order was issued. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Due Process Violation: The court held that the Additional Sessions Judge did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 514 Cr. P. C., which requires three stages: recording reasons for forfeiture, calling upon the person bound by the bond to pay the penalty or show cause, and considering any explanation provided by the person bound by the bond. The order was deemed non-speaking and procedurally flawed. Opportunity to Contest: The petitioner was not given an opportunity to explain or contest the forfeiture, as required by law, before the order of attachment of property was issued. The High Court quashed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 03.01.2023, and all subsequent proceedings were declared illegal and ineffective. The case was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge for a decision in accordance with the law. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P. C) This section outlines the procedure for the forfeiture of bonds and requires the court to: Record the reasons for forfeiture. Call upon the person bound by the bond to pay the penalty or show cause why it should not be paid. Consider any explanation provided by the person before proceeding with the recovery of the penalty through attachment and sale of property.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 514---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.22---Surety---Forefeiture of bond---"Movableproperty"---Scope---Future salary, attachment of---Legality---Reduction in surety bond---Petitioner stood surety and Trial Court passed an order to attach his future salary in lieu offorefeiture of surety bond---Validity---Term "movable property" as used in S.514, Cr.P.C. hadsame meanings as defined in S.22, P.P.C.---Movale property of whatever description includedcorporeal property which could be perceived and received and in no way included salary ofperson not yet accrued---In absence of movable property, recovery could have been made ascontained in S.514(4), Cr.P.C., which was never pressed---Warrants of imprisonment in jail forthe term to be decided by Trial Court but not exceeding six months could have been issued, if theamount, as directed was not paid---No illegality existed in the orders passed by two courtsbelow, except the direction for attachment of salary---High Court directed the Trial Court toadopt procedure prescribed by S.514, Cr.P.C. for recovery of the amount forfeited and set asidethe direction for attachment of salary---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Ss. 514 & 561-A Cr.P.C. and Ss.109, 471, 420 & 406 PPC. Forfeiture of bond-Reduction in surety. --- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 514 & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.109, 471, 420 & 406---Forfeitureof bond---Quashing of order, petition for--Petitioner stood guarantor for accused anddeposited Rs.2,00,000 as surety in cash---Accused jumped off bail and the petitionerbeing guarantor had failed to produce him before the Trial Court and out of suretyamount of Rs.2,00,000 deposited by the petitioner, amount of Rs.1,50,000 was forfeitedby the Trial Court and the petitioner had filed petition for quashing the said order underS.561-A, Cr.P.C.---Counsel for the petitioner had requested for moderate reduction inthe forfeited amount---Validity---Standing of surety for some one being an act ofbenevolence, unless and until it was established that the surety had got accused releasedon bail for any ulterior motive or for monetary gain, he was not to be treated harshlyand not to be punished severely, without there being extraordinary circumstancescalling for full forfeiture of the surety bond---In the present case the Trial Court had notassigned cogent reasons as had been mentioned in sub-clauses (I) & (2) of S. 514, Cr. P.C. ---Nothing was available on record to show that the surety submitted by thepetitioner was for personal gain, but it seemed that same was out of benevolence andhumanitarian considerations---Trial Court, while forfeiting the amount of Rs.1,50,000out of Rs.2,00,000 had shown severity; it should have made investigation for arriving ata just conclusion with respect to a quantum of fine, but it had failed to do so---Amount of fine of Rs.1,50,000 imposed on the petitioner was reduced to that of Rs.80,000---Trial Court after deducting said amount, would return the remaining amount i.e. Rs.1,20,000 to the petitioner accordingly.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- S. 514 --- Surety bond --- Liability of surety upon failure of accused to appear --- Discharge of surety --- Discretion of Court to reduce forfeited amount --- Appellant stood surety for the accused in two criminal appeals arising out of the same acquittal judgment. The appeals remained pending for ten years before the High Court and were ultimately dismissed, confirming the acquittal. The High Court, however, ordered the appellant to deposit Rs. 100,000/- in both appeals despite him being surety for a single accused. The Supreme Court of AJ&K observed that although the liability of a surety ordinarily arises upon the failure of the accused to appear, the long pendency of the appeals and the confirmation of acquittal justified a lenient approach. The Court, therefore, exercised its discretion to reduce the total surety liability to Rs. 100,000/-, directing the appellant to deposit the amount within one month. Failing compliance, the law would take its own course. ---Disposition: Appeal disposed of. Surety amount reduced to Rs. 100,000/- total, payable within one month.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----Ss. 497, 498 & 514---Bail---Surety bond---Reduction in amount---Principles governing discretion--- Appellant, a co-accused, was granted post-arrest bail by the Special Court (CNS-II), Islamabad, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the like amount---Due to limited financial means, he applied for reduction of surety amount which was dismissed by the Trial Court---Held, that bail once granted should not be rendered illusory or ineffective by imposition of onerous financial conditions beyond the capacity of the accused---Purpose of surety is to ensure attendance of accused during trial, not to penalize him---Where the accused demonstrates bona fide intention to comply with bail conditions but is financially constrained, the Court may reduce the surety to a reasonable amount to uphold the spirit of justice. (b) Administration of Justice--- ----Principles of fairness---Economic hardship---Bail conditions--- Court observed that excessive financial conditions attached to bail orders may defeat the purpose of granting bail by making compliance practically impossible for economically weak accused persons---Courts are bound to balance the objective of securing the accused’s appearance with ensuring accessibility of relief granted---Bail conditions must be realistic, equitable, and not oppressive. (g) Disposition --- Appeal allowed---Order of the Trial Court dated 11.04.2025 set aside---Surety amount reduced from Rs. 200,000/- to Rs. 100,000/- with permission to deposit in cash along with one surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 514---Forfeiture of bond---Scope of Court’s powers---Surety’s CNIC, Passport, SIMs and bank accounts blocked by Trial Court upon absconsion of accused---Legality and proportionality of coercive measures---Held, that under S.514, Cr.P.C., the Trial Court may forfeit the bond and recover penalty from the surety upon failure to produce the accused or to show sufficient cause---However, the statute does not authorize additional coercive actions such as blocking of CNIC, Passport, SIMs, or freezing of bank accounts---Such actions directly interfere with fundamental rights and must satisfy the test of proportionality---In the absence of any allegation of mala fide or collusion between the surety and the absconding accused, the extreme measures adopted by the Trial Court were found to be excessive and unconstitutional. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 9, 15 & 25---Fundamental rights---Restrictions on movement and deprivation of identification documents---Blocking of CNIC and Passport of surety found violative of fundamental rights to liberty, movement, and equality before law---Principle of proportionality applied---Court held that actions affecting personal liberty must have lawful basis and be the least restrictive means to achieve a legitimate aim---A surety, not being an accused or convict, cannot be subjected to punitive measures beyond the scope of bond forfeiture proceedings---Such actions were declared constitutionally infirm. (c) Administration of justice---- ----Natural justice---Right of hearing---Order passed without effective opportunity of hearing---Surety unable to appear or issue power of attorney due to blocked CNIC and Passport---Held, that the principle of audi alteram partem demands that no adverse order be passed without notice and opportunity to respond---Impugned order passed without affording due process rendered unsustainable. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 514---Deposit of surety amount---Petitioner’s offer to deposit full amount of PKR 500,000/- accepted---Purpose of surety bond achieved upon deposit---No further coercive action warranted---Trial Court directed to accept deposit and drop forfeiture proceedings accordingly. Disposition: Writ Petition allowed; Impugned Order dated 01.11.2024 set aside; CNIC, Passport, SIMs, and bank accounts of surety ordered to be unblocked subject to deposit of PKR 500,000/- before Trial Court within fifteen (15) days.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 87, 88, 514 & 265-C---Declaration of accused as proclaimed offender---Mandatory procedure---Non-compliance---Validity---Petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender by the Trial Court without first issuing bailable warrants and without proper service of notice under S.87, Cr.P.C.---Held, that the learned Trial Court had not followed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Ss.87 and 88, Cr.P.C.---The purpose of successive processes (summons, bailable warrants, non-bailable warrants, and proclamation) is to secure the attendance of the accused before the Court and not to punish for non-appearance---Issuing non-bailable warrants and declaring the accused a proclaimed offender without ensuring proper service amounted to denial of due process and violation of principles of natural justice---Impugned Order, therefore, suffered from material illegality and was liable to be set aside. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----Ss. 435 & 439---Revision---Scope---Where procedural irregularity affects the legality of the order, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised to rectify miscarriage of justice---Trial Court’s failure to comply with mandatory requirements of Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C., being a jurisdictional error, warranted interference by the High Court in revision proceedings---Impugned Order declaring the petitioner a proclaimed offender set aside to the extent of the petitioner. (c) Criminal law---Fair trial and due process---Principles---Accused’s non-appearance not shown to be deliberate or contumacious---She had earlier appeared, received copies under S.265-C, Cr.P.C., and was on post-arrest bail based on compromise with complainant---Held, in the interest of justice, the petitioner deserved an opportunity to face trial rather than being penalized for procedural lapses of the Court---Direction issued for her appearance before the Trial Court and for continuation of proceedings from the stage where broken. Disposition: Criminal Revision Petition allowed; Impugned Order dated 23.04.2025 set aside to the extent of petitioner; petitioner directed to appear before Trial Court on 10.07.2025.