2003 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Jamil Qamar for the State. Date of hearing: 11th December, 2002. Petitioners Gulzar Khan arid Naseeb Gul stood sureties for Accused Muhammad Akram involved in a case registered vide. F.I.R. No‑617, dated 16‑11‑1996 under sections 400/401/420/468/411, P.P.C. read with section 13, Arms Ordinance and section 14, Islamic Law at Police Station Saddar, Kohat. They had executed bail bonds in the sum of Rs.80,000 for the attendance of the accused before the Court i.e. the earned Judicial Magistrate, Kohat,, When summoned, the accused 4uhammad Akram failed to attend the Court to face trial, therefore, the Petitioners were called upon to show as to why they should not be proceeded against under section 514, Cr.P.C. and the amount of bail bonds be realized from them. The learned Additional Sessions Judge‑II, Kohat vide his order dated 21‑8‑2002 forfeited the amount of bail bonds and directed each of the petitioners to deposit Rs.80,000 (each) till 5‑9‑2002. Feeling aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners have filed the criminal revision in hand.

2. Mr. Muhammad Amin Khattak Lachi; the learned counsel representing the petitioners, argued that the petitioners stood sureties on humanitarian grounds and not for any monetary gains. No proper opportunity was provided to them for production of the accused before Court and even proper procedure laid down in section 514, Cr.P.C. was not adopted.

3. It was also argued that the sureties bonds were submitted in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kohat, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge‑II, Kohat was not competent to confiscate the amount.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Jamil Qamar, the learned counsel representing the State, argued that the petitioners had stood sureties to produce the accused as and when called by the Court but neither the accused appeared to face the trial nor the sureties were able to produce him though sufficient opportunity was provided to them to produce the accused, therefore, the impugned order was based on proper appreciation of facts and law applicable.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. It is an admitted position that the petitioners stood sureties for production of the accused, namely, Muhammad Akram and they had executed bail bonds in the sum of Rs.80,000 on 24‑2‑1997 before the Magistrate 1st Class, Kohat. It is also an admitted fact that the accused Muhammad Akram failed to attend the Court when summoned to face the trial, therefore, they were bound to produce him and in case of their failure to produce him, they were, as per their own undertaking, liable to pay Rs.80,

000. The perusal of bail granting order shows that the petitioners (both) were liable to pay Rs.80,000 but since they stood sureties on humanitarian grounds only and had not taken any benefit out of the sureties bonds, therefore, the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge‑II, Kohat is too harsh. The criminal revision in hand is, therefore, allowed and the sureties amount is reduced to half, equivalent to Rs.40,000 which is to be recovered from the petitioners in accordance with jaw. S.M.A.H./655/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly. ?