2004 PLP 687 (MLD)

Shaukat Hayat Khan D.A.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 18th February, 2004 Gul Nawaz petitioner has filed instant criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. challenging the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.I. Khan dated 11-12-2003 whereby penalty of Rs.50,000 was imposed on the petitioner under section 514, Cr.P.C. and he was directed to deposit the said amount in Court or in default to suffer imprisonment for three months.

2. Shortly narrated the facts are that accused Sarwar son of Amir Muhammad, a 'khana badosh' was arrested in case F.I.R. No.174 registered at Police Station, Gomal University, D.I. Khan of offences under sections 302/324/427/148/149, P.P.C. The petitioner alongwith one Azhar Khan furnished surety bond in a sum of Rupees one lac each and consequently, he was released on bail. During the trial of the case, accused Sarwar absconded and failed to appear before the trial Court. The petitioner was served with the requisite show-cause notice as to why the amount of bail bond should not be recovered from him. He submitted his reply and expressed his inability' to produce the accused before Court. Resultantly, keeping in view the facts from Rupees one lac to Rupees fifty thousands. The petitioner deposited Rs.8000 in Court and he was directed to deposit the remaining amount in three instalments.

3. Mr. Hamidullah Khan Khattak, Advocate for the petitioner maintained that the impugned order is harsh and the financial condition of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration while imposing penalty; that the petitioner stood surety for accused Sarwar out of benevolence, without any monetary gain; that imposition of penalty was improper, unjust and unreasonable; that no inquiry was made to ascertain if the petitioner had any direct interest with the accused or that absconsion of the accused was with his connivance and that while imposing penalty, a balance should have been made between undue leniency and undue severity which was not made. He placed reliance on Amanullah and other petitioners v. The State respondent (1997 PCr.LJ 1927), Muhammad Khan v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 2028) and Muhammad Shah -and others v. The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1254 Lahore).

4. Conversely, Mr. Shaukat Hayat Khakwani, learned Deputy Advocate-General for the State opposed the petition and contended that the learned Court below has already taken a lenient view in the matter and the impugned order hardly warrants interference. He placed reliance on Zehsan Kazmi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 267) and Faqir Khan appellant v. Muhammad Safeer and the State respondents (1997 PCr.LJ 1172).

5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that for whatever reason the petitioner had become surety, he was under legal obligation to discharge his liability himself, it does not lie in his mouth to say that on account of his financial condition, he cannot pay the amount of bond executed by him and stood surety of the accused out of benevolence and without any monetary gain. There is no legal embargo that the amount of bail bond in full cannot be forfeited. In a case where an accused person jumps bail bond, the entire surety amount becomes liable to confiscation. The surety is liable to produce the accused in Court in view of his undertaking. In case of Zehsan Kazmi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 267), it was held:-- "Once an accused person jumps bail bond, entire surety amount A become liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances

Courts in view of bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the 'rule of law, and because of the un-precedent continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss' of money value, should not show any leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. Approach of Courts should be dynamic and progressive-oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bond". In the case in hand, the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the amount of surety bond from Rupees one lac to Rupees fifty thousands and I see no good reason to further reduce the amount of surety. The impugned order is correct, proper and legal and does not call for interference of this Court in its revisions jurisdiction.

6. The revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court. H.B.T./41/P Revision dismissed.