2004 PLP 879 (SCMR)

JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑By this order we propose to dispose of the above captioned petitions for leave to appeal which are directed against the common order dated 6‑5‑2002 passed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in chambers whereby the Criminal Revisions (368 of 2002 and 369 of 2002) were dismissed and the order dated 17‑4‑2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge was kept intact whereby the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners were forfeited by imposing a penalty of Rs.40,000 each.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners stood, sureties for one Sabir Abbas who was facing trial in a case registered against him under sections 302, 324, 148 and 149, P.P.C. and absconded after getting bail. After having completion of all the formalities the bail bonds amounting to Rs.50,000 furnished by each of the petitioners were forfeited and penalty of Rs.40,000 each was imposed by the learned Additional Sessions. Judge, Sheikhupura, which was assailed by means of criminal revisions which have been dismissed.

3. It is mainly contended by Ch. Ali Muhammad, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioners `that the explanation tendered by them has been ignored without rhyme and reason which should have been considered prior to making any order in this regard which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. It is next contended that the petitioners could not be penalized who stood sureties in a good faith and have no concern whatsoever with the absconsion of the accused and as such the imposed penalty was not justified. It is also pointed out that penalty in the sumo of Rs.40,000 each cannot be imposed as accused Sabir Abbas was released on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000.

4. We have carefully examined the respective, contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioners and perused the order dated 17‑4‑2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and order impugned in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. The above mentioned contentions have been dilated upon and decided in a comprehensive manner vide order impugned after taking into consideration the precedented law, relevant portion whereof is reproduced herein-below for ready reference:‑‑ "

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and going through the documents appended with these petitions it has been noticed that the notice issued to both the present petitioners under section 514, Cr.P.C. had indeed been signed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and the said fact is evidenced by certified copies of the said notices available on the files of the present revision petitions. Thus, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not supported by the record of this case. As regards the second submission it may suffice to observe that Sabir Abbas accused had been admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount which clearly shows that each one of the sureties was individually liable to a penalty of Rs.50,000 in case of failure of the said accused person to appear before the learned trial Court. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the aggregate amount of penalty against both the petitioners could not exceed Rs.50,000 is misconceived.

5. It is not disputed that the accused person for whose bail the petitioners had stood as sureties has absented from the learned trial Court and so far he has not resurfaced before the learned trial Court and his trial has been stalled. Thus, admittedly the petitioners have failed to fulfil their obligation and commitment in that regard in a murder case. The petitioners had themselves volunteered to become sureties for the said accused person's bail in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and, thus, it does not lie in their mouths to maintain before this Court that the penalty of Rs.40,000 each imposed upon the petitioners is excessive and oppressive. It may be true that in the matter of imposition of a penalty in this regard a balance is normally to be struck between severity and lenience but at the same time it cannot be lost sight of that the menace of accused persons jumping their bails is on the increase and such a tendency, especially in cases involving a capital charge, needs to be curbed with firmness, on the part of the Courts. It may not be out of place to refer here to the cases of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267, Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and 4 others PLD 1998 SC 50 and Muhammad Safeer v. Faqir Khan and 2 others 2000 SCMR 312 according to which reduction of the amount of the bail bond was not in consonance with law and forfeiture in such regard has to be to the extent of the full amount of the bond. In the case in hand the petitioners have already been dealt with leniently by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura and, thus, no further lenience towards the petitioners is called for from this Court. "

5. A bare perusal of the above reproduced portion of the order impugned would reveal that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge is strictly in accordance with law and settled norms of justice. No question of public importance is involved on the basis whereof leave to appeal could be granted. The petitions being meritless are accordingly dismissed. N.H.Q./A‑399/S Leave refused.