1985 P Cr (PLP)

Shah Ahmad Khan Baloch for Appellant. Sh. Ehsan Ahmad for A.‑O for the State. Muhammad Siddiq Chughtai for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 9th March, 1985. This is an appeal by Javed Iqbal, appellant, against the order of Additional Sessions Judge of Faisalabad, dated 7‑1‑1985 forfeiting the surety bond furnished by the appellant and directing him to pay up the surety amount in favour of the State by 3‑2‑1985, failing which coercive method would be adopted for the recovery of the surety amount.

2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel ‑for the appellant, the complainant and the State. It appears that one Muhammad Akram was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, on 31‑1‑1984 in respect of a case instituted against him and six others under section 30214041148/149, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Satiana, District Faisalabad. On 11‑6‑1984 the bail was cancelled by the High Court, whereafter the accused failed' to appear before the trial Judge. Accordingly, notice was issued to the present appellant, who was surety named in the, bond furnished by the accused. From 16‑9‑1984 to 18‑12‑1984 the appellant was given time to produce the accused, but he could not do so: Ultimately on 18‑12‑1984, the appellant submitted his reply stating that he stood surety for the accused due to his being related to him, that he had made no monetary gain in this regard and that he could not trace him out in spite of best efforts made. After taking necessary proceedings in law against the surety, the trial Judge, by order, dated 7‑1‑1985, forfeited the bond and directed the appellant to pay the amount by 3‑2‑1985. It cannot be denied that though the appellant happened to be the real brother of Muhammad Akram, accused, he took a number of adjournments to trace and produce him, but unfortunately failed. The said accused has been declared a proclaimed offender. The police has also failed to apprehend him. Considering the fact that there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant connived at the disappearance of the accused, I would reduce the amount to be realised on the‑bond from Rupees Thirty Thousand (Rs.30,000) to Rupees Eight Thousand (Rs.8,000) the appellant being liable for this amount alone and no more. Total realisation to be made shall be Rupees Eight Thousand (Rs.8,000) only.

3. This appeal therefore, stands partly accepted, in terms of reduction of the amount to be recovered on the bond, as stated above. M. Y. H. Appeal partly accepted