1991 P Cr (PLP)

4. Bashir petitioner is the accused himself who had absented while petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 are the ones who had stood sureties for the accused persons including Bashir petitioner.

5. Through an order, dated 17-7-1990, the bonds submitted by all the petitioners were forfeited by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and consequently petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 were directed to pay Rs.2,000 each while petitioner No.l was ordered to pay Rs.5,000 as the penalty.

6. This order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is being challenged through Criminal Revision No.443 of 1990.

7. The remaining three accused persons, namely, Sadiq, Mehdi and Nazir aforementioned were also likewise directed to pay Rs.5,000 each as penalty on account of forfeiture of their respective bonds for their non-appearance before the learned Additional Sessions Judge as noticed above.

8. This was through an order, dated 24-9-1990 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura which order has been challenged by these three accused persons through Criminal Revision No.162 of 1991.

9. Since both these matters arise out of the same facts and involve identical questions, therefore, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Sadiq, Mehdi and Nazir accused (petitioners in Criminal Revision No.162 of 1991) were on their way to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 19-6-1990 to enter appearance as directed but were taken into custody by one A.S.I. Muhammad Ayyub of Police Station Sharaqpur and were detained by him till 12-7-1990 and it was for this reason, that they could not comply with the order of the said learned Court regarding their appearance before it on the date in question.

11. Consequently, the learned counsel contends that since their non-appearance was involuntary, therefore, the order forfeiting their respective bonds and directing them to pay the penalty abovementioned, is legally untenable.

12. This question was raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge; has been discussed in detail in the two impugned orders but did not find favour with the said learned Courts.

13. The findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge against the petitioners cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary.

14. Even otherwise it is not believable that despite being on interim pre -arrest bail granted to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, none on behalf of the petitioners ever approached any Court or Authority regarding the illegal confinement of the three accused persons abovementioned which confinment had extended beyond three weeks.

15. No reason has been shown which could justify interference with the two impugned orders, which are accordingly maintained.

16. Consequently, both the petitions under adjudication are dismissed. SA./B-256/L Revision dismissed.