2000 PLP 692 (YLR)

The necessary facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that on 29‑5‑1999 one Ghulam Sarwar accused was admitted to ad‑interim pre‑arrest bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar in case F.I.R. No. 162 registered at Police Station Kalur Kot, District Bhakkar on 27‑5‑1999 for an offence under section 458, P.P.C. The present petitioner had stood as a surety for the purposes of the said accused person's bail in the sum of Rs. 20,

000. The said application for bail was fixed for confirmation or otherwise of the abovementioned accused person's pre‑arrest bail on 9‑6‑1999 on which date the said accused person appeared before the learned Sessions Judge in person but the matter was adjourned to 16‑6‑1999. On that date i.e. 16‑6‑1999 Ghulam Sarwar accused did not appear before the learned Sessions Judge and a request was made on his behalf by his learned counsel seeking adjournment on the ground that the said accused person was medically unwell. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to 21‑6‑1999. On 21‑6‑1999 Ghulam Sarwar accused again absented from‑ the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, whereupon his application for pre‑arrest bail was dismissed and a notice was issued to his surety i.e. the present petitioner in that regard. On 22‑7‑1999 the bail bond of Ghulam Sarwar accused was forfeited and again a notice was issued to the present petitioner in respect of initiation of proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. The petitioner submitted his reply to the notice issued to him in that regard on 20‑10‑1999. On the said date the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar felt dissatisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was imposed upon the petitioner in that connection. The learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar also ordered that the case be sent to the District Magistrate, Bhakkar for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner. That order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar on 20‑10‑1999 has been assailed by the petitioner before this Court through the present revision petition.

2. In support of this petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the bail bond submitted by the petitioner was only in respect of the accused's appearance before the Court on 9‑6‑1999 and not beyond that date, and, therefore, the petitioner could not be penalized for the accused person's non‑appearance before the Court on any date after 9‑6‑1999. In this connection reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner an the gases of Abdul Hafeez v. The State (1993 MLD 541) and Sardar Muhammad v. The State (1998 P Cr. LJ 236). It has further been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even otherwise the petitioner had not stood as a surety for the accused person for any monetary benefit and that the petitioner had done so only on humanitarian considerations. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner these factors ought to have been kept in mind by the learned Sessions Judge for the purposes of taking a lenient view in respect of the penalty to be imposed against the petitioner.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record of the case annexed with the present revision petition I have remained unable to subscribe to the view that the petitioner was bound to produce the accused person before the Court only on 9‑6‑1999 and not on any date beyond the said date. Acceptance of such an argument would amount to requirement of submission of fresh bail bonds for every fresh date of hearing to which a matter of pre‑arrest bail is adjournment. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner also overlooks the wording of the bail bond submitted by the petitioner in the present case (appended with this petition as Annexure‑B at page 8) according to. which the petitioner had undertaken to produce the accused person before the Court not only on 9‑6‑1999 but also on every date of hearing "till the decision of the case". Unfortunately, the said words used in the printed form of the bail bond were I never brought to the notice of the learned Courts deciding the abovementioned reported cases.

4. A detailed order has been passed by the learned. Sessions. Judge Bhakkar in this case showing the mind to all the relevant factors involved therein. The reasons advanced by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhakkar‑for passing the impugned order are not adverse to the settled principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction under section

514. Cr.P.C. The explanation submitted by the petitioner for non‑production of the accused person before the learned Court of Session on 21‑6‑1999 was not found to be acceptable by the learned Sessions Judge and even this Court has found the said explanation to be unsatisfactory. It has been conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ghulam Sarwar accused has neither applied for bail since 21‑6‑1999 nor he has joined the investigation of the case registered against him. All this has resulted from the failure of the petitioner to procure his presence before the learned Court of Session after standing as his surety in the matter of his bail. The petitioner has already been dealt with leniently by the learned Sessions Judge and no further concession can be shown to him by this Court in the circumstances of the case. No jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned Sessions Judge has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner so as to warrant an interference by this Court in this matter in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. Criminal Miscellaneous 1 of 2000 As the main revision petition has been dismissed by this Court today, therefore, the present application seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Dismissed. H.B.T./A‑14/L Petition dismissed.