2007 PLP 244 (YLR)

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.

Mahmood Iqbal petitioner No.2 stood surety for Walayat Ali petitioner No.1 who vide order dated 6-7-2006 was granted pre-arrest interim bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad in case F.I.R. No.188 of 2006 dated 15-6-2006 under sections 337-H(2)/342, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Kassoke, District Hafizabad and submitted surety bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 which was accepted on the same date. The accused/petitioner No.1 did not appear before the learned Sessions Court on the next dated i.e. 11-7-2006, resultantly, the learned Court dismissed the bail petition for non-prosecution and also initiated proceedings by issuing notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. to the surety as well as the accused, the petitioners herein, whereupon on the same day petitioner No.1 appeared before the Court and filed second bail petition wherein he was again granted ad interim pre-arrest bail. In reply to notice Mehmood Iqbal petitioner No.2/surety explained that accused/petitioner No.1 could not appear in Court on 11-7-2006 due to breakdown of the rickshaw and that he was granted pre-arrest bail on 11.7-2006 which was also later on confirmed as a result of compromise having been effected 'between the parties. Being not satisfied with the said reply, the learned Sessions Judge, vide order 15-8-2006 forfeited the surety bonds submitted by petitioner No.2 to the tune of Rs.10,000 only by taking lenient view. The learned Additional Sessions Judge through the same order also burdened Muhammad Walayat petitioner No. 1 with a fine of Rs.15,000 holding that he was more responsible than his surety. Both the petitioners were directed to deposit the penalty imposed by the Court in the Government Treasury within 20 days. Hence this revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset has prayed for reduction in the penalty imposed upon the petitioners on the grounds that petitioner No.2 had submitted surety bond on humanitarian grounds who had not gained any monetary benefit from the accused i.e. petitioner No.1 and this was an act of benevolence on the part of petitioner No.2; that the absence of petitioner No.1 was not wilful but due to unavoidable circumstances as mentioned above; that on -the date of hearing i.e. 11-7-2006 when he reached the Court, the order regarding initiation of proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. had been passed and that he again applied for pre-arrest bail on the same day which was granted and was subsequently confirmed on account of a compromise effected between the parties. Lastly contended that the petitioners are very poor persons, hence, a lenient view should be taken in the matter.

3. The learned State counsel has no objection to the reduction of the penalty imposed by the learned Sessions Judge.

4. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 for whom the petitioner No.2 stood surety could not appear before the Court of learned Sessions Judge on 11-7-2007, i.e. the date fixed for confirmation of bail, resulting in dismissal of his bail petition for non-prosecution as well as issuance of notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. to the surety who could not procure the attendance of the accused at the said point of time. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, fully justified to impose the penalty upon the petitioners. However, the petitioner No.2 stood surety only on humanitarian ground and not for any monetary benefit and even otherwise no connivance about non-appearance of the accused has been alleged against him. Further, the accused on that very date appeared before the Court with another application for bail and was granted pre-arrest bail which was later on confirmed on account of compromise effected between the parties coupled with the fact that the petitioners are poor persons, a balance has to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioners. In the wake of the facts narrated above, I am of the considered view that the penalty imposed by the learned Court is on the higher side.

5. For what has been discussed above, the impugned order dated 15-8-2006 to the extent of forfeiture of surety bond is maintained. However, the amount of penalty imposed on petitioners Nos.1 and 2 is reduced from Rs.15,000 and Rs.10,000 respectively to Rs.5,000 each. They are directed to deposit the same in the government treasury within 30 days from the date of this order. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./W-25/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.