2006 PLP 2648 (YLR)

IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Through this petition under sections 435/ 439, Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 13-5-2005 and 31-5-2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari by declaring the same as illegal and unlawful.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Riaz Ahmad respondent No.2 was involved in case F.I.R. No.384 dated 18-9-2004 registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 at Police Station Luddan, District Vehari. He moved an application for bail before arrest. Ad interim bail was granted subject to furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.40,000 with one surety vide order dated 218-9-2004 and the petitioner stood surety on behalf of respondent No.2. On 5-10-2004 respondent did not enter appearance and his bail application was .dismissed and the surety was issued notice. The petitioner submitted his reply and order has been passed against the petitioner on 13-5-2005 for payment of Rs.20, 000 as penalty for default to produce the accused in the Court.

3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.2 subsequently appeared in the Court on 15-5-2005 when ad interim pre-arrest bail was granted to him but subsequently on 21-10-2005 the bail application having not been pressed was dismissed and now respondent No.2 is in the judicial lock-up. It is next contended that since respondent No.2 has been arrested and now is not fugitive from justice, the impugned order regarding forfeiture of surety bond is liable to be set aside. Relies upon Mukhtar Ali v. The State and others (1991 PCr.LJ 1625) in support of this contention.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the contents of this petition as also the impugned orders. It is an admitted fact that Riaz Ahmad respondents No.2 having been involved in a criminal case had moved application for bail before arrest and vide order dated 28-9-2004 ad interim bail was granted to him subject to furnishing bail bonds amounting to Rs.46, 000 with one surety. Then the petitioner stood surety for said Riaz Ahmad and he was bound to produce him in the Court on each and every date. On 4-10-2004 the date fixed for final hearing in the morning the accused appeared in the Court, when the counsel requested for adjournment to prepare the brief. Thereafter the case was called number of times and arguments were also heard on behalf of the complainant but neither the petitioner nor his counsel turned up till rising of the Court and the application was dismissed and notice was also issued to the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. It appears that the accused had intentionally disappeared from the Court to avoid disposal of the petition on merits. As such the petitioner was liable to forfeiture of surety bond. It is generally noticed that the accused persons after grant of interim bail started efforts to linger on disposal of bail petition and even do not B care to appear in the Court. In such circumstances lenient view cannot be taken regarding forfeiture of the sure bonds as the accused cannot be allowed to misuse the Concession of bail while disappearing from the Courts. I have noticed that the petitioner has already been dealt with leniently by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the quantum of penalty as he has been directed to pay the half of the total surety amount and there does not appear any reason to further reduce the same. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as in the said case the accused had absented during trial of the case.

5. In the above circumstances I do not find any reason for interference in the impugned order. This petition having no merit is dismissed in limine. N.H.Q./A-568/L Petition dismissed.