2002 PLP 361 (YLR)

Abdul Wahid Chaudhry for Petitioner. Ishfaq Ahmad Chaudhry for the State. Hafiz Khalil Ahmed for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 4th April, 2002. The necessary facts giving rise to the present petition are that on 28-1-2002 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala had admitted one Tahir Mehmood alias Taidi accused to ad interim pre-arrest bail till 2-2-2002 in case F.I.R. No.166 of 1996 registered at Police Station Sadar, Kamoke, District Gujranwala and the present petitioner had stood as a surety for the said accused person's bail in the sum of Rs.50,

000. On 2-2-2002 the record of the case was not available and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala adjourned the matter to 7-2-2002. On 7-2-2002 the above mentioned accused person absented himself from the Court and, resultantly, his ad interim pre-arrest bail was cancelled by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, the bail bond was forfeited and proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. Subsequently the petitioner submitted a reply to the notice issued to him under section 514, Cr.P.C. having remained dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000 upon the petitioner vide order dated 20-3-2002 which order has now been assailed by the petitioner before this Court through the present revision petition.

2. In support of this revision petition the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner had stood as surety for the above-mentioned accused person's bail only till 2-2-2002 and not beyond the said date and the said accused person had indeed appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 2-2-2002, thus according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was under no obligation to produce the above-mentioned accused person before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 7-2-2002 to which date the matter had been adjourned by the Court. It has further been argued that a compromise has already been arrived at between the parties and the complainant well as the injured victim have already made statements before the learned trial Court the effect that they do not want to prosecute the above-mentioned accused person. It has lastly been maintained that the above mentioned accused person was subsequent arrested by the local police with the act help of the petitioner and thereafter he v also admitted to post-arrest bail by the leaned trial Court and, therefore, the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the learn Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala appears to be excessive and oppressive. The learned counsel for the State has opposed this petition half-heartedly.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through record it has been felt that the legal submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect ti the petitioner was not bound to produce the above mentioned accused person before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala on 7-2-2002 runs contrary to the law declared by this Court in the case of Abdul Hameed v. The State (2000 YLR 692 in which case it has clearly been laid down that a surety is legally obliged to produce the relevant accused person before the Court on all dates of hearing till the decision of the matter and not just on the first date of hearing unless the bond executed by him in that regard shows otherwise. In the present case the bond executed by the petitioner has not been produced before this Court to claim such an immunity.

4. The accused person for whose bail the petitioner had stood as surety was subsequently re-arrested with the help of the present petitioner and was admitted to bail by the learned trial Court and this is evident from the orders dated 28-2-2002 and 20-3-2002 passed by the trial Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala copies whereof have been appended with this petition as Annexures D/1 and C respectively. It is also clear from the order dated 7-2-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwal (a copy whereof has been appended with this petition as Annexure-B) that the parties to this case have already entered into a compromise with each other and the complainant as well as the injured victim have already made their statements before the learned trial Court to the effect that they did not wish to prosecute the petitioner any more.

5. In these peculiar circumstances of this case the penalty of Rs.10,000 imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala upon the petitioner appears to be oppressive and excessive and, in the words of Shakespeare, amounts to insisting upon a pound of flesh.

6. Pursuant to the discussion made above this petition is partly allowed and the amount of penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the learned Additional Session Judge, Gujranwala through the impugned order dated 20-3-2002 is hereby reduced to sum of Rs.2,000 (rupees two thousand only) which amount shall be deposited by the petitioner in the , Court of the learned. Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala within a period of two weeks from today failing which the said amount shall be recovered from the petitioner by attachment of b movable property. This revision petition is disposed of in these terms. H.B.T./L-44/L Order accordingly.