s. 91 & 204---Private complaint---Issuance of process against accused---Summoning of accused by Trial Court to face trial---Ensuring future appearance before court---Requirement---Trial Court was required to proceed under S. 91, Cr.P.C. and to direct accused to execute bond with or without sureties for his presence in the court---Section 91, Cr.P.C. by necessary implication also empowered the court to commit the person present in court to custody if he failed to give security for his attendance. [For latest view see 2014 SCMR 1762]2015  SCMR 56 SUPREME-COURT REHAM DAD Case.
Ss. 91, 204, 496, 497 & 498---Private complaint--- Summoning of accused by Trial Court to face trial---Ensuring future appearance before court---Requirement---Court may require accused to furnish a bond with or without sureties---Applying for pre-arrest bail not relevant---2014  SCMR  1762 SUPREME-COURT SARWAR Case
Forfeiture of bail bond, principle: Full amount of surety bond is to be forfeited if the circumstances so require. Principle laid down by Supreme Court in Dildar and another v. The State; PLD 1963 S.C. 47: "A balance has to be held between undue leniency, which might lead to the abuse of the procedure and interfere with the course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue serverity which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward," does not require any modification because of the down hill slide in moral values all around since then and on account of the incident of increase of accused jumping bail after they are released on bail. Petition dismissed. PLD 1997 SC 406, Zeeshan Kazmi, also see PLD 1997 S.C. 267.
Amount of surety bond in bail cases should be fixed keeping in view the financial position of the accused. Amount reduced from Rs. 2,500,000 to Rs. 1,500,000. NLR 1989 Cr. 636. Mian Abdul Wahid.
Amount of surety reduced from Rs. 15 lac to Rs. 1 lac, as the co-accused had been released on furnishing surety for Rs. 1 lac. The amount of surety bond fixed by the Special Court was held to be harsh, excessive and unreasonable keeping in view the status of the accused in life. 1994 P. Cr.LJ 118, Rana Muhammad Siddiq. Also see 1994 P.Cr.LJ 299, Muhammad Tanvir.
Cash security in bail: Rule is that the Court while dealing with application u/S. 497/498 Cr.P.C. has no power to insist upon deposit of cash security in connection with his bail. (D.B) PLD 1997 Lah. 605 State v. Muhammad Hasham Babar.
Excessive amount of bail bond nullifies the bail itself. High Court reduced the amount to Rs. 50,000 from Rs. 5,00,000. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Kar.) 244. Muhammad Younas.
Bail amount of Rs. 15 million with two sureties not considered excessive for 2 ladies facing trial under Ehtasab Ordinance. (FB) PLD 1998 Kar. 148, State v. Dr. Usman Farooqi, etc.
Bail bond verification. When a person offers to stand surety and submits his documents for verification the Court should determine the fitness of the surety. The Magistrate cannot act on the opinion of another authority such as the City Deputy Collector. PLD 1970 Kar. 187 Muhammad Saleem.
Security bond verification by Tehsildar. Magistrate demanding security beyond means in proceedings under section 107, Cr.P.C. or requiring Tehsildar to verify bonds or asking police to report about suitability of sureties condemned. PLD 1965 Pesh. 74 Muhammad Sarwar.
Forfeiture of surety bond; Principles. Additional Sessions Judge forfeiting entire amount of Rs. 5,000 of bail bond. Surety of petitioner not in any way connected with criminal activity or abscondence of accused. Effort of surety to secure presence of accused could not be fruitful as he had left the country. Held, default of surety would be adequately punished by making him pay Rs. 1,000 instead of Rs. 5,000. NLR 1984 Cr. 536. Allah Bakhsh.
Surety forfeited without notice to the surety u/S. 514 (1), Cr.P.C. Order set aside. Case remanded for fresh decision. NLR 1990 Cr. 185. Muhammad.
Surety not asked by the Court why the amount of bond be not realised from them. Order quashed. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (AJ&K) 387, Raja Faizullah.
Forfeiture of surety: without show cause. Order to surety to pay the amount without asking to show cause against forfeiture order set aside. Case remanded for notice to surety to show cause and to determine the extent of forfeiture. PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Q) 421. Syed Yaqub Shah. PLJ 1984 Cr.C. (Kar.) 32. Muhammad Ali.
Opportunity u/S. 514 (1), Cr.P.C. must be real, fair and reasonable. It should not be a make-belief or sham affair. Held, forfeiture order in the present case has violated the requirement, and as such was not sustainable. NLR 1990 Cr. 342. Momen Khan.
Surety cannot be forfeited without giving an opportunity to explain and lead evidence if so desired by the surety. NLR 1987 Cr. 382 (2) Sabir Hussain Shah.
Bond forfeited without hearing surety, the surety producing, the accused in Court, amount forfeited reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000. 1976 P.Cr. LJ 1498. Liaqat.
Bond forfeited without notice to surety for absence of accused on one date. Surety producing accused on knowing that fact. Forfeiture order set aside. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1389 Muhammad Ramzan.
Surety Bond not forfeited. The sureties were given notice by the High Court to produce the accused. They requested the Court to give them some time to produce the accused. When the sureties produced the accused in the High Court the Bonds were not forfeited. Cr.Misc. No. 144-M-84 Rehmat v. Malik Faqir Muhammad etc. Lahore High Court. Not reported.
Surety bond not forfeited as the surety had executed the bond to produce the accused in the Court of Sessions Judge and case having been transferred to the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, High Court held, that the forfeiture of surety bond was without lawful authority. NLR 1983 Cr. 2. Hassan.
Surety bond cannot be forfeited by transferee Court. When surety bond was executed before Sessions Court and the case was then transferred to the Special Court for Speedy Trials who forfeited the bond. Held, Special Court had no jurisdiction to pass an order of forfeiture u/S. 514 Cr.P.C. Only Sessions Court could pass such an order. PLD 1970 Kar. 46 = NLR 1983 Cr. (Kar.) and 1986 P.Cr.LJ 311 (Lah.) relied upon. PLJ 1992 Cr. C. (Lah.) 319, Muhammad Aman Ullah.
Amount of forfeiture reduced from Rs. 200,000 to Rs. 5,000 when the accused was produced before the Court by the effort of the surety and the surety had derived no monetary benefit. NLR 1988 Cr. 248. Munir Ahmed.
Amount of surety reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 5,000 when accused arrested with the efforts of the surety and petitioner had stood surety simply because the accused was a co-villager. 1990 SCMR 1300. Muhammad Sharf.
Bail bond of Rs. 40,000/- forfeited by trial Court, amount reduced to Rs. 10,000 keeping in view the principle of undue severity and undue leniency to keep the balance between the two, and because the absconding accused had been arrested and produced in Court. 1997 SCMR 1387, Muhammad Ashraf and another.
Confiscation of surety bond of Rs. 10,000 reduced to Rs. 3,000 By High Court. NLR 1987 Cr. 787. Ahmed Khan.
Forfeiture of surety. Petitioner stood surety not for monetary gain but out of benevolence. Amount of forfeiture reduced from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 3,000 PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Kar.) 286. Syed Nazir Ali Shah.
Bond forfeited u/S. 40, Frontier Crimes Regulation  (III of 1901). As section 40 of F.C.R. is ultra vires of the Constitution hence forfeiture of bond u/S. 514, Cr.P.C. for being bound down u/S. 40, F.C.R. is not legal. Proceedings quashed. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 1388 Sardar Khan etc.
Forfeiture of surety bond. Petitioner surety not related to the accused and taking all possible measure to produce accused but failing due to circumstances beyond his control, amount of penalty reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 500 1977 P.Cr.LJ 940. Talib Hussain.
Bond forfeiture; consideration for Court to consider in the presence of the surety and then decide the extent of forfeiture, whether the sureties have direct interest through financial or blood relations with the accused; whether they connived with the accused for absence; whether they did their best to procure his attendance. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 954. Banaras.
Forfeiture of surety bond. The Court is to keep balance between leniency and severity while forfeiting the bond. Penalty reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 5,000. NLR 1990 Cr. 324 Zulfiqar etc.
Forfeiture of bond order passed without inquiring into the circumstances of the abscondence of the accused. In the absence of the inquiry the order of penalty held, illegal. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 1374 State v. Muhammad.
Forfeiture. The accused arrested through the efforts of the surety. Amount of forfeiture reduced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 50. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 454 Aziz-ur-Rehmand 1975 P.Cr.LJ 58.
Forfeiture of surety bond set aside when it was proved before the Court that the absence of the accused was not wilful as the accused after his release on bail was arrested in two other criminal cases. 1994 P.Cr.LJ 1041, Muhammad Shafi.
When accused is produced by surety and non-bailable warrants by the Court had been fruitless the amount of surety bond was reduced from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000 only. PLJ 1992 Cr.C. (Kar.) 352, Buno.
Forfeited amount of bond reduced, as the surety was a poor man and had stood surety for his own son. Amount reduced from rupees 5,000 to rupees 1,000 1976 P.Cr. LJ 1283 Bahadar Khan.
Amount reduced of surety bond of Rs. 30,000 to 8,000 where there is nothing on record that the surety connived at the disappearance of the accused. NLR 1985 Cr. 385. Javed Iqbal.
Bond forfeiture of: Surety duty-bound to keep control over movements of accused released on his security to see that the accused attends the Court on all dates. Surety making frantic efforts to get the accused arrested and got him arrested within three days of forfeiture of bond. Amount of forfeiture reduced from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 50. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 58 Aziz-ur-Rehman. PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 454.
Bail bond forfeiture. Amount reduced to 1/5th in the circumstances of the case. PLD 1963 SC 47 dildar and another.
Bail bond forfeiture. Out of a surety for Rs. 5,000 High Court forfeited only Rs. 250. PLD 1952 Lah. 645 Sardar Khan.
Bail bond forfeiture. Surety is liable to pay the amount of surety in addition to the principal amount of bond (DB) ILR 17 Lah. 523 Sardar Khan v. Crown (ILR 1923 Lah. 462 and ILR 1924 Lah. 448 overruled). PLD 1968 Lah. 1442 Sher Muhammad (FB) 41 Cr.LJ 757 Naraiy Sahair v. Emp. 225 I.C. 609.
Bond forfeiture of. No grounds given for the justification of imposing fine. Whether the absence of the accused was deliberate or beyond his control not inquired into. Held, order patently illegal. 1976 P.Cr.LJ 474. State v. Abbus Sattar.
Entire forfeited amount remitted When sureties produced the accused in Court after the passing of the order forfeiting surety amount of Rs. 25,000. NLR 1988 Cr. 613. Muhammad Fayyaz.
Forfeiture of surety bond of Rs. 30,000 set aside on the ground that the illiterate and poor tenants had stood surety for the accused not for any monetary gain but out of benevolence and humanitarian considerations. In the circumstances the surety bonds forfeiture was oppressive and unjust. PLD 1996 Lah 600. Shatab Khan and another = PLJ 1996 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1727.
Confiscation of surety bond of Rs. 25,000 set aside in revision u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. as the accused had absconded after the date for which the petitioner had stood surety. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 1514, Sardar Muhammad
Surety a poor and illiterate person who had stood surety out of benevolence and not for personal gain, order for forfeiture of surety and imposition of penalty set aside. PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 47 Shita Khan. Also see PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 46, Shamim Khan and PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 49, Sardara.
Entire surety amount of Rs. 200,000 forfeited when the surety appeared to have helped the accused to abscond. The accused a French national was indicted for attempting to export 4800 grams of heroin worth 4,80,000. NLR 1989 Cr. 559. Iftikhar Ahmed.
Entire amount of security bond forfeited when no good ground made out for its reduction. NLR 1991 Cr. 246 Falak Sher.
Bail bond not forfeited as the surety had given no undertaking to produce the accused before the Military Court. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 368 Fateh Khan.
Bail bond can be forfeited only by the Court where the accused had to appear. Forfeiture by Magistrate was without jurisdiction when the bond was for appearance before Sessions Judge. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Lah.) 128. Ashiq Ali.
Surety bond to produce accused at time and place specified in the bond and not at any other place. PLJ 1990 Cr. (Kar.) 399. Ali Jan.
Sureties not liable for absence of the accused as the accused did not abscond but was not spared by the Army as he was on duty in national interest. Appeal against forfeiture of surety bond accepted. 1990 SCMR 1129. Mohammad Akbar.
Surety bond amount reduced from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 10,000/- as amount forfeited for absconding accused keeping in view the factors that there was no community of interest between the surety and the absconder and the financial status of the surety. PLJ 1996 Cr.C (Lah.) 945 Jahangir Khan. PLD 1963 S.C. 47. Dildar and another followed.
Amount of Rs. 100,000, of bail bond reduced to Rs. 10,000 only as the petitioner had stood surety not for financial benefit but because the accused was his real son. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 495, Aman Ullah and another. 
Forfeited amount of security bond reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 75,000/- by trial Court and further reduced by High Court to Rs. 60,000/- The Supreme Court declined to reduce the amount any further. 1996 SCMR 1995, Zafar Ali.
Forfeiture of surety bond of Rs. 100,000/- set aside as appellants (sureties) according to the terms of the bail bonds had undertaken to produce the accused in the Court of the Magistrate only, therefore they were not liable for the nonappearance of the accused in the Sessions Court. 1997 SCMR 571, Barkat Ali etc.
Only 1/5 of surety amount forfeited when the petitioner stood surety on humanitarian grounds only. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Kar.) 498. Khan Bahadar; PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 228 Saif ul Malook.
Accused admitted to pre-arrest interim bail after jumping bail, held in such a case surety would not liable forfeiture of surety bond. Revision accepted. NLR 1994 Cr. 428, Muhammad Ishfaq.
Advocate identifying surety for bail on the basis of National Identity Card. The surety turned out to be a fake person. The Advocate was asked to submit his explanation, by the trial Court. The explanation was not accepted and the Court directed that a complaint be lodged against the Advocate in the concerned Police Station. High Court held that the Advocate had not given personal undertaking that he would be personally liable if surety turns out to be a fake person. The impugned order was held to be an abuse of the process of the Court and quashed. PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 312, Mr. Ilam ud Din Khatak.
Entire amount of bail bond is liable to be forfeited in absence of any mitigating circumstances, when the accused jumps bail bond. The accused who was SHO of a Police Station was expected to behave in a civilised manner. Entire amount of bail bond (Rs. 2,00,000) ordered to be forfeited. PLD 1997 S.C. 267, Zeeshan Kazmi.
Order to deposit Rs. 10,000,000/- in cash for grant of bail by Ehtesab Bench upheld by the Supreme Court. PLD 1998 S.c. 1, Hakim Ali Zardari.
Forfeiture amount of Rs. 200,000/- as surety ordered. The forfeiture of surety amount was reduced to 25% by the Sessions Court. High Court upheld the order. Where the accused persons jumped the bail and absconded after committing two murders in the Court premises. Plea of the sureties that they had not stood sureties for any monetary gain but on humanitarian basis. Supreme Court ordered the forfeiture of entire amount of bail bond. PLD 1998 SC 50, Abdul Bari v. Malik Amit Jan etc. PLJ 1998 SC 512 also see PLJ 1998 SC 641, Zeeshan Kazmi