P L D 2011 Supreme Court 116 (PLP)

TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, J.

For the murder of Saifullah and Shujatullah, a case F.I.R. No.2, dated 2-1-2008 was registered at Police Station Saddar, District Sheikhupura under sections 302/109/148/149, P.P.C.

2. Amongst others Saleem Raza and Akhtar Islam were nominated as accused for the murder case. They were allowed bail by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore on 18-6-2008. Aggrieved from the order granting bail, the complainant party filed Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 224 of 2008 which was converted into appeal and allowed on 5-1-2009 as a result whereof bail granted to Saleem Raza and Akhtar Islam was cancelled.

3. Despite cancellation of bail the two accused who were required under the law to surrender and to be taken into custody neither surrendered nor were arrested and it was alleged by Mst. Noor Habib sister of two deceased that in fact the local police of Sheikhupura was willfully not arresting the two accused named above and other accused who were proclaimed offenders. She filed Criminal Original Petition No.23 of 2009 wherein on 15-10-2009 this Court directed the DPO Sheilchupura to arrest the accused with further direction to provide reasonable security/protection to Mst. Noor Habib and also issued notices to the sureties of Saleem Raza and Akhtar Islam to appear in-person.

4. On 21-10-2009 one of the sureties Ghulam Dastagir, who is father of Akhtar Islam appeared before this Court who undertook production of the accused.

5. It was on 30-10-2009of this Court was informed that Saleem Raza and Akhtar Islam and some of the other nominated accused had been arrested.

6. Because of non-surrender by Saleem Raza and Akhtar Islam the learned trial Court commenced proceedings under section 514 Cr.P.C. against the sureties who are now petitioners before us and issued notices to them for 6-3-2009 and forfeited the bonds. Therefore number of adjournments were granted in the proceedings because of non-appearance of the sureties. However, four sureties namely Ghulam Dastagir son of Ghulam Haider, Sarfraz Raza son of Abbas Ali, Ghous Muhammad son of Ghulam Haider and Ghulam Dastagir son of Muhammad Hanif appeared before the learned Trial Judge on 3-11-2009. They were issued show-cause notices as to why the surety amount of Rs.2 lacs each should not be recovered from them. The sureties sought time to file their respective replies to the show-cause notices.

7. After hearing the counsel for the parties the learned Trial Judge on 18-1-2010 finally passed an order whereby the surety bonds of each surety worth Rs.2 lacs were confiscated in favour of the State and the sureties were directed to deposit the same till 30-1-2010 failing which the directions were issued to the Tehsildar concerned to confiscate their movable properties. Order of forfeiture of surety bonds/fine was challe,ed before the learned High Court through Criminal Revision No. 103 of 2010 which was heard and dismissed on 9-2-2010. Now the present petition.

8. Learned counsel appearing before us argued that two accused namely Saleem Raza and Akhtar Islam were arrested because of the efforts made by the sureties and are now in custody and facing trial. Next contention was that the petitioners have got no personal gain but stood sureties because of their kinship with the two accused named above. It was finally argued that because of the reason that accused have been rearrested, some lenient view be taken towards payment of the surety amount/fine. Reliance was placed on Dildar v. State (PLD 1963 SC 47), Muhammad Ashraf v. State (1997 SCMR 1387) and Ghulam Qadir Siyal v. State (1997 PCr.LJ 554).

9. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned Additional Prosecutor General have argued that the two accused namely Saleem Raza and Akhtar Saleem despite cancellation of their bail by this Court on 5-1-2009 did not surrender until they were rearrested on 29-10-2009 that too because of filing of Criminal Original Petition No.23 of 2009 by the complainant before this Court.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the material available on record.

11. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable on facts of the present case. The present law and order situation prevailing in the country and the deterioration of the moral values in the society in the past 3/4 decades requires that provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. should not only be adhered to strictly but in case of non-appearance of the accused, a surety should be held liable for forfeiture of full amount of its bonds for the reason that moral values of our society as were in the sixties are different today.

12. Where a Court allows bail to an accused person with the condition that he shall furnish bail bonds in a particular amount through sureties and if such sureties fail W. produce the accused when required by the Court, any leniency shown in case of failure of the surety in production of an accused would tantamount to violating the law and would encourage the non-production of accused who was allowed bail on the basis of bonds furnished by the sureties.

13. In this case two persons were done to death who are brothers inter se. Petitioners Ghulam Dastagir son of Muhammad Hanif is father of the accused Akhtar Islam; Ghulam Dastagir son of Muhammad Hanif is maternal uncle of accused Akhtar Islam, Sarfraz Raza is cousin of accused Akhtar Islam whereas Ghous Muhammad is uncle and brother-in-law of accused Saleem Raza. All the petitioners are closely related to the two accused named above and it was impossible for them that despite knowing the factum of cancellation of bail of accused by this Court on 5-1-2009, for almost 10 months the accused named above remained outlaws and the sureties (petitioners) did not made any effort to procure their attendance as was required by this Court and by the trial Court.

14. In view of above discussion and keeping in view the judgment in Zeshan Kazmi v. State (PLD 1997 SC 267), we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference by this order in the order of the learned High Court, confirming the judgment/learned trial Court.

15. For the foregoing reasons, we see no substance in this petition as such the same is dismissed. Leave declined. M.H./G-12/SC Petition dismissed