P L D 1986 Karachi 647 (PLP)

Date of hearing : 20th May, 1986. By this application under section 435"439, Cr. P. C. the order of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur dated 16‑11‑1985 is challenged whereby he directed the applicant to pay surety amount of Rs. 25,000 in respect of accused Ghulam Mustafa and Rs. 25,000 in respect of accused Abdul Ghafoor, both of whom are said to have absented themselves from the Court in a case under section 302, P. P. C. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this application are that accused Ghulam Mustafa and Abdul Ghafoor were challaned alongwith co‑accused Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Sharif in the Court of Sessions Judge Sukkur under section 302/34, P. P. C. All these four accused were granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge in the sum of Rs. 25,000 each. Applicant Muhammad Shaffi had stood surety for all the four accused, subsequently this Court cancelled the bail of all the four accused. Co‑accused Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Sharif appeared in the trial Court and consequently remanded to custody Abdul Ghafoor and Ghulam Mustafa did not surrender themselves and have remained at large and N. B. Ws. were issued against them and the applicant/surety made all possible efforts to see that they are arrested but did not succeed. He requested the learned trial Court to give him some more time as he had received information that they were available at Lahore. The learned trial Court, however, did not acceded to his request and ordered for payment of entire amount of the surety bond and got the same recovered through coersive process. From the perusal of case papers, it appears that the applicant has stood surety for all the four accused without taking any monetary benefit etc. It also appears that he had taken efforts to secure the presence of all the four accused. He succeeded in getting two of them surrender before the Court but could not succeed in getting two others. Similar situation had arisen in the case of Didar and another v. The State (PLD1963SC47). The relevant citation reads as under:‑ "On the face of it, it seems clear that these two persons stood surety for Mir Jan out of ordinary fellow‑feeling, but they certainly appear to have taken their responsibility altogether too lightly. It does not appear that either of them gained any benefit from standing bail for Mir Jan, or do they appear to be in any way connected with his alleged criminal activity, or with his escape from Karachi. Whether or not either of them made an attempt to enquire in Multan regarding Mir Jan at any earlier stage, it is certain that Ghulam Hussain tried to do so under this Court's direction without success. Since Muhammad Yamin too has left Karachi and Ghulam Hussain's information was completely vague, it was natural that his effort should not have succeeded. Taking all these circumstances into account, we find that the two appellants had indeed forfeited their bonds but we consider at the same time that the full amount of the bonds need not have been required from them and that, in all the circumstances, their default will be adequately punished by requiring each of them to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000." In this case the Supreme Court had required the surety to pay 1/5th of the amount of bond. Looking to the circumstances of the present case, I direct that the applicant to pay 1/4th of the amount of bond for which he had stood A surety of the accused. I, therefore, order that a sum of Rs. 6,250 for Abdul Ghafoor and Rs. 6,250 for Ghulam Mustafa be paid by the surety. The remaining amount be refunded to him. S. G. D. Order accordingly.