2010 P Cr (PLP)

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.

The facts giving rise to the present criminal revision application are that the accused namely Abdul Latif, (2) Abdul Fatah, (3) Hidayatullah, (4) Allah Rakhio, (5) Muharram, (6) Peeral and (7) Ramzan were facing trial before the learned Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-III, Larkana in Criminal Case No.25 of 2000 re: State v. Abdul Latif and others for an offence under sections 337-A(ii), 147, 148, P.P.C. being Crime No.55 of 1998 of Police Station Taluka. The said accused were admitted to pre-arrest bail by the Court of learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in the sum of Rs.50,000 each. The applicant Ghulam Rasool stood surety for all the seven accused on 4-7-1998,in the above matter. A Later on all the seven accused jumped over the bail and they remained absent from the trial Court and consequently their bail bond was forfeited and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicant/surety who produced six accused namely Abdul Latif, Abdul Fatah, Hidayatullah, Allah Rakhio, Peeral and Ramzan out of seven accused and whereas he failed to produce seventh accused namely Muharram before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court imposed penalty of entire surety amount of Rs.3,50,000 upon the applicant/surety. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant first filed criminal revision application under sections 435 and 439-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Court of Sessions Judge, Larkana, which being incompetent was withdrawn and then he filed appeal under section 515, Cr.P.C. which was ultimately decided by the learned Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana vide impugned order, 'dated 21-2-2009. Hence this criminal revision application. Learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the order, dated 21-2-2009 passed by the Appellate Court is harsh and is on higher side and he, therefore, requests for taking lenient view. Learned State Counsel has supported the impugned order, dated 21-2-2009. I have heard learned Advocate for the applicant and learned State Counsel. I have gone through the material placed before the Court. Perusal of the impugned order, dated 21-2-2009 reveals that learned Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana has already taken very lenient view by reducing the substantial surety amount from Rs.3,50,000 to Rs.1,10,000 that is to say penalty of Rs.10,000 for each of six accused, who were produced by the applicant and full surety amount of Rs.50,000 for accused Muharram, who was not produced by the applicant before the learned trial Court, therefore, the contention of learned Advocate for the applicant that the impugned order, dated-21-2-2009 is on higher side is not tenable. In view of the above, the impugned order, dated 21-2-2009 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana does not call for any interference, therefore, the present revision application is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that per applicant's present financial position, he is unable to pay the entire surety amount at a time, therefore, applicant may be allowed to pay the above amount in four monthly instalments. Learned State Counsel concedes to the above proposition. Looking to the financial position of the applicant and while taking lenient view, the applicant is allowed to pay the surety amount of Rs.1,10,000 in four monthly equal instalments and he is required to pay first instalment within seven days from today and the remaining three instalments on or before 20th of each coming month without fail. Order accordingly. H.B.T./G-33/K Order accordingly.