2000 PLP 1535 (MLD)

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that about 100 (one hundred) grams of heroine powder was recovered from the possession of accused Aslam on 12‑1‑1996 and after usual investigation he was sent up to stand trial.

3. The accused who was granted bail by the trial Court on 16‑4‑1996 in the sum of Rs.100,000 (one hundred thousand) upon furnishing surety he was released on 23‑1‑1997. He appeared on some dates of hearing before the trial Court but on 2‑5‑1997 applicant/accused absconded. The bail bond of accused was forfeited and non‑bailable warrants were issued against him, so also a notice was issued to his surety. The surety furnished explanation, which was found unsatisfactory and a sum of Rs.100,000 (one hundred thousand) was ordered to be paid by the surety. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order of penalty, dated 21‑7‑1999, the applicant/surety has preferred the present revision application.

4. I have heard Mr. Naeem Akhtar Khan Tanoli, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Saad Qureshi, learned counsel on behalf of A.‑G. for the State. The latter has supported the impugned order. I have also perused the material placed on record.

5. There is no cavil with the proposition that drug paddlers deserve no sympathy and their act amounts to genocide against the society at large.

6. The record reveals that after release the accused jumped bail on 2‑5‑1997 but subsequently he was arrested, tried and acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi,, vide judgment, dated 19‑.12‑1998.

7. The explanation of abscondence given by the surety was that one, of his brother, namely, Akram, who too was involved in another case was kidnapped by the dacoits and that the accused Aslam and applicant /surety went in search of him towards Balochistan, hence the accused remained absent. This explanation did not find favour with the trial Court and penalty was imposed. I, too, concur with the trial Court as no sufficient proof for kidnapping was placed on record.

8. In the cases of penalty, it is well‑settled that Court has to see whether there was any comity of interest, between the surety and absconding accused and balance has to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity looking towards the facts and circumstances of each case.

9. Admittedly, the applicant/surety was real brother of the absconding accused Aslam. He did not stand surety for any monetary gain but out of blood relationship, benevolence and sympathy.

10. The charge of drug trafficking was also not proved against the accused Aslam and he was acquitted. The accused Aslam remained absent for 7 to 8 months before the Trial Court.

11. Looking towards the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the order of forfeiture of bond is maintained. The penalty is, however, reduced from Rs.100,000 (one hundred thousand) to Rs.50.000 (fifty thousand). The revision application stands disposed of with the above modification. H.B.T./A-42/K Order accordingly.