1986 PLP 2540 (MLD)

Dildar's case P L D 1963 ‑S C 47 rel. Malik Rehmat Khan Awan for Petitioner. Nasim Iqbal for A.A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 4th October, 1986. This is a revision petition filed by Sardar Muhammad, petitioner, against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, dated 13‑4‑1986, imposing upon him a penalty of Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs. 10,000) in respect of the forfeiture of the bail bond submitted by him on 29‑7-1984.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner on 29‑7‑1984 stood surety for one Muhammad Amin, accused, who was admitted to interim pre‑arrest bail by a learned Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad. The accused was directed to appear in the Court on 13‑8‑1986. On the said date, the accused appeared, but the Presiding Officer was on vacation. Accordingly 29‑8‑1984 was fixed as the next date of hearing. On the said date, Muhammad Amin, accused, did not appear. Accordingly his petition for pre‑arrest bail was dismissed, his order of interim pre‑arrest bail recalled and notice was issued to Sardar Muhammad, petitioner, to show cause why his bond should not be forfeited. The petitioner submitted his reply and requested for time to trace the accused. Unfortunately, till 13‑4‑1986, he could not produce the accused. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge forfeited the bond and directed the petitioner to pay the full amount of the surety bond i.e. Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs. 10,000).

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It. appears that the order is legal and just. However, it has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner that he is a poor man and that he stood surety for the accused out of benevolent motives. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not related to the accused and that he did not connive at his disappearance in any way. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been trying his level best to trace the accused, though without success, in which venture he has suffered financially. Taking into account these factors and in view of the principle laid down in Dildar's case P L D 1963 S C 47, I would reduce the amount of the bond to be recovered from the petitioner from Rupees ten thousand (Rs. 10,000) to Rupees two thousand (Rs. 2,000).

4. For the foregoing reasons, whilst maintaining the validity of the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 13‑4‑1986, I would reduce the amount of the' bond to be recovered from the petitioner from Rupees Ten Thousand (Rs. 10,000) to Rupees Two Thousand (Rs. 2,000). This revision, therefore, stands partly accepted in terms of the reduction in the amount of the penalty to be recovered from the petitioner. S.A. Revision partly accepted.