2008 PLP 2442 (YLR)

The revision petition is against the order dated 9-2-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwalla. Whereby he imposed Tawan of Rs.50,000 upon the petitioner as a surety.

2. The petitioner Ghulam Bari stood surety for one Mst. Shazia who was an accused in case F.I.R. No.340 of 2001, registered under sections 9-B of C.N.S.A., 1997, at Police Station Sabzi Mandi District Gujranwala. Subsequently during proceedings of the challan case, she did not turn up in spite of having been summoned and adoption of all the coercive measures in this regard by the trial Court. So, proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C, were initiated against the petitioner as a surety and he was imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000 as Tawan by the trial Court.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned trial Court has not adopted proper procedure as envisaged in section 514 of the, Cr.P.C. That it has committed a legal error while confiscating the entire amount of bail bond and did not show any concession to the petitioner. That the learned trial Court did not consider that the petitioner stood surety for accused simply out of benevolent' considerations and that nothing was on record to show that he stood surety for any monetary consideration. That the absence of the accused was due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. That even otherwise the Tawan imposed upon the petitioner was excessive and the learned trial Court did not consider financial' position of the petitioner/surety. That the' impugned order of the trial Court is very' harsh and it be set aside.

4. Grant of bail is an essential part of the system of administration of justice. It avoids punishing someone in advance and ensures liberty until a case is duly enquired into and adjudged. Whereas, the release of accused persons on bail helps in preventing overcrowding in the already overcrowded prisons. People come forward to stand surety for the accused out of ordinary fellow-feelings and invariably without any ambition for gaining of benefit rather for mere benevolence. Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who may be in default, a judicial mind is supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency, which may be leading to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice. Whereas, on the other hand, undue severity may lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. While maintaining this balance, the Courts are required to hold some sort of balance while determining to what extent a bond is to be forfeited. Reliance in this connection may be placed on the following cases:-- (i) Sardar Khan and others v. The State (1968 PCr.LJ 447); (ii) Ghulam Haider v. Karim Bakhsti (PLD 1963 SC 47); (iii) Muhammad Khan v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 2028); and (iv) Bahadur Khan v. The State (1976 PCr.LJ 1283).

5. Under the circumstances of this case, we reduce the amount of Tawan from Rs.50,000 to Rs.10,

000. Anyway, the petitioner is directed to continue making efforts for the production of the accused for whom he stood as surety and if he produces him in a month's time, the forfeiture may be further reduced to half of the amount, mentioned above. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./G-56/L Order accordingly.