2011 PLP 1545 (MLD)

SALMAN HAMID, J.

Through this Criminal Revision Application (Cr.R.A.) under sections 435 and 439-A read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C, the applicant has impugned Orders dated 29-6.2010 and 26-8-2010 (Impugned Orders).

2. For the purposes of disposal of the present Cr.R.A., the necessary facts which are required to be stated are that the present applicant stood surety for accused Deedar Ali alias Deedo in Crime No.55 of 2009 of Police Station Dhamrah, registered under sections 17/3 H.O. 342, 34 P.P.C. and furnished surety bond of Rs.50,000 which was accepted by the trial court on or about 3-2-2010.

3. The accused did not appear before the trial court on 13-4-2010 and an intimation was sent through his brother in such regard. The accused was excused by the trial court and the case was adjourned to 26-4-2010. Again on the adjourned dated i.e. 26-4-2010 the accused neither appeared nor any intimation was sent, such being the position, the trial court forfeited the surety and non-bailable warrants against the accused were issued and notice was also ordered on the present applicant/surety. According to the record of the file, the notice that was issued to the surety in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C. was duly served on him. However, the non-bailable warrants which were issued against the accused received un-executed. On 29-5-2010, the present Applicant/ Surety appeared before the trial court and made an application, requesting therein for time and production of the accused. Such application was allowed by the trial court and the case was adjourned to 8-6-2010. The record would show that despite such latitude by the trial court, the Applicant/Surety failed to produce the accused on the adjourned date i.e. 8-6-2010; instead yet another application was moved seeking further time to produce the accused. The trial court taking a lenient view yet again gave time to the Applicant/Surety and adjourned the matter to 29-6-2010. On 29-6-2010, again the Applicant /Surety failed to produce the accused. Not only this, the notice that was issued earlier in time under section 514, Cr.P.C. was also not replied by the Applicant/Surety.

4. Looking at the above dismal state of affairs on the part of the Applicant/Surety, the trial court was left with no choice but to forfeit the entire surety bond dated 3-2-2010 amounting to Rs.50,000 and imposed penalty. The record would show that a penalty of Rs.50,000 was thus imposed in terms of Impugned Orders. Fifteen days time was granted to the Applicant/Surety for making payment of the aforesaid amount, failing which the same was ordered to be recovered in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C.

5. It seems that the Applicant/Surety on or about 16-7-2010 made an application with a prayer for reducing the penalty amount of Rs.50,000, so imposed by the trial court. The trial court after hearing the above application, dismissed the same on 26-8-2010.

6. The learned counsel for the Applicant/Surety has raised only one ground for recalling the impugned Orders i.e. that the Applicant/Surety stood as such only on the humanitarian grounds and he being a poor person, the impugned Orders passed by the trial court be set aside:

7. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the Cr.R.A by agitating that since the accused is charged with an offence punishable under section 17/3 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 which is an offence against humanity and the fact that the accused has jumped the bail, no leniency should be sl1own by this court and the Cr.R.A. be dismissed.

8. I have heard arguments of the parties and have perused the record.

9. The facts of the case mentioned above would show that despite all out latitudes by the trial court, the Applicant/Surety failed to produce the accused which shows that the accused is not in his contact and there is every likelihood that he would not be available at all or at least in the near future. The fact that the accused was charged with a heinous offence and the fact that now he is at large, the forfeiture and imposing of penalty by the trial court was not harsh. What is harsh or otherwise is a relative term and a balance has to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 267) held that keeping in view the bleak scenario which has emerged with the passage of time on account of lack of respect for the rule of law and because of unprecedented continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in loss of money, the courts should not show any undue leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. The approach of the courts should be dynamic and progressive oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bonds. There is no legal requirement that full bail bond amount should not be forfeited. On the contrary once an accused person jumps bail bond the entire surety amount is liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. Gauging the present case from the criteria set by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in my opinion the trial court kept the balance of leniency and undue severity well within the required parameters and passed the Impugned Orders.

10. There has been over all detoriation in all spheres of life, and the crime rate has only gone up and the fact that the criminal instinct has affected the entire fabric of our society in all walks of life and the orders of the courts have been taken too lightly, I am not inclined to interfere into the Impugned Orders and maintain the same.

11. As a result, Cr.R.A. is found to be meritless and the sane is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-83/K Application dismissed.