1998 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Sharif and another v. The State 1994 SCMR 690 ref. Ch. Mumtaz Ahmad for Appellant. Malik Mateen Khokhar, Asstt. A.-G. for the State. Date of hearing: 25th July, 1997. Sardar Muhammad, the present petitioner, stood surety for one Muhammad Saleem son of Ghulam Haider resident of Pippliwala, District Gujranwala, who was admitted to pre-arrest interim bail on 22-12-1996 till 8-1-1997 for a sum of Rs.50,000 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, in a case registered against him under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, vide F.I.R. No.462 of 1996, dated 16-7-1996, at Police Station Saddar, Gujranwala.

2. The said Muhammad Saleem appeared before the Court on 8-1-1997 when the case was adjourned to 15-1-1997. The order for interim bail was also extended till that date. On 15-1-1997 Muhammad Saleem appeared before the Court and the case was adjourned to 22-1-1997. On the said date, however, Muhammad Saleem did not appear before the Court whereupon proceedings against the petitioner were initiated under section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The surety bond of the petitioner was consequently forfeited by the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, dated 8-4-1997 and the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000 in the Court within a period of one month.

3. The petitioner has assailed the said order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, through this revision petition claiming that he had stood surety of the accused for his appearance in the Court till 8-1-1997 whereafter he' was not responsible for his appearance or abstention on the subsequent dates.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Malik Mateer Khokhar, the Assistant Advocate-General and have also examined the surety bond submitted by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. It is clear from the surety bond tendered by the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that he had taken responsibility for the conduct and appearance of Muhammad Saleem accused in the Court till the 8Il January, 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Abdu Hafiz v. The State 1993 MLD 541 where, in an identical case, the learner Single Judge of this Court had held that a surety could not be held responsible for absence of the accused for a date for which the surety had not undertaken for his production in the Court.

5. Malik Mateen Khokhar, learned Assistant Advocate-General referred to Muhammad Sharif and another v. The State 1994 SCMR 690, wherein the Supreme Court had refused leave to appeal to the surety whose surety bond was forfeited because of absence of the accused for over 8 months. The learner Assistant Advocate-General, however, conceded that from the said citation it is not clear if the surety in the said case had taken the responsibility for appearance of the accused uptil a particular date or for throughout the proceedings. The case of Abdul Hafiz referred to above is on all fours with the facts of the present case. The petitioner as stated above had clearly given surety for the conduct an appearance of the accused Muhammad Saleem in the Court till 8-1-1997. In this respect, the relevant extract of the surety which is in vernacular is reproduced below:-- In view of the above undertaking, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for absence of the accused from the Court from any subsequent date. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, had therefore, erred in making the petitioner liable for non-appearance of the accused on the subsequent dates after C 8-1-1997. In view thereof, the order of forfeiture of surety bond and for deposit of Rs.25,000 in the Court, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on 8-4-1997 is not sustainable and is, therefore, set aside.

6. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that generally printed forms of surety bonds are submitted by the accused and their sureties at the time of their admission to bail. These printed forms which are available in the market are accepted mechanically without examining the entries made therein. The Courts and authorities accepting these forms should ensure that these bonds clearly' specify the dates, including extended dates for interim bails or proceedings for which surety should be made liable for appearance of the accused.

7. The revision petition is accepted accordingly. N.H.Q./S-137/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition accepted.