1988 P Cr (PLP)

Accused Sardar Khan son of Abdullah Khan and Muhammad Umar son of Muzaffar Khan, both residents of village Tangi, Tehsil Charsadda, have preferred this Criminal Revision Petition against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, dated 3-10-1987 whereby the learned Judge forfeited the surety bonds of the petitioners to the extent of 1/3rd with the direction to deposit the forfeited amount i.e. Rs.10,000 in Court within 3 days. However, this Court on 28-10-1987 under C.M. No.783/87 filed by the petitioners with the present revision petition had suspended the operation of the impugned order till further orders subject to notice.

2. Brief account of the case is that a case under section 307/ 148/149 PPC was registered against one Saadullah vide FIR No.228 dated 23-11-1986 at Police Station Tangi and on his application for bail he was bailed out subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties. The two petitioners thus stood sureties for ensuring the appearance of the said accused in Court. On 19-7-1987 the learned trial Judge summoned Saadullah accused for 29-7-1987 for trial but he did not appear and was reported 'to have absconded after commission of another offence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, issued non-bailable warrant of arrest both against the said accused as well as against the two petitioners herein. However, on 19-9-1987 the learned trial Court allowed time to the petitioners on their promise to produce the accused in Court on 3-10-1987. On 3-10-1987 the petitioners appeared before the learned trial Judge and expressed their inability to produce the said accused as he had absconded to the tribal area. The petitioners filed an application in the Court and prayed that they should be dealt with leniently for violating the terms of their surety bonds. Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Charsadda, on 3-10-1987 ordered that the petitioners' surety bonds to the extent of 1/3rd be forfeited. On 17-10-1987 they were directed to deposit the forfeited amount in Court within 3 days. Hence the present revision petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were neither served with a notice to show-cause against the imposition of penalty nor were they provided an opportunity to produce evidence in their defence and thus the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is in violation of section 514, Cr.P.C. However, the learned A . A. -G. appearing on behalf of the State diverted my attention to the application of the petitioners on file wherein they have admitted in clear words that as they have failed to produce the accused, therefore, a lenient view may be taken in the forfeiture of their surety bonds. Thus the learned A.A.-G. contended that in such a situation when the petitioners themselves prayed for the forfeiture of their surety bonds the Court did not consider it necessary to record evidence in this regard.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also cited at the bar various authorities of the superior Courts to show that the learned Court below has not kept the balance between undue leniency and undue serverity while assessing the extent of penalty and forfeiture of the bail bonds to the extent of 1/3rd is contrary to the law laid down by the superior Courts. Some of the few authorities are hereby reproduced below. In Dildar and another v. State P L D 1963 S C 47 their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held as under:- "S. 514--Bail bond--Forfeiture--Balance to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity--Assessing extent to which bond should be forfeited--Matters to be taken into consideration by Court--Sureties acting through mere benevolence on behalf of accused--Forfeiture of bonds in sum of Rs.5,000 reduced to Rs.1,000 each." Similarly, in Mohammad Khan v. The State 1986 P Cr. L J 2028 it has been observed as follows:- "S. 514(2)--Surety bond, forfeiture of--Amount to be confiscated--Petitioner stood surety, not for any monetary benefit--No connivance about disappearance of accused alleged against petitioner--Amount to be confiscated in favour of State was reduced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.5,000 in circumstances." Likewise in Abdul Aziz and 2 others v. The State 1987 P Cr. L J 163 the following observations were made:- "S. 514--Surety bond, forfeiture of--Petitioners stood surety for accused, allowed interim pre-arrest bail--Accused, however, got delayed in attending Court on date of hearing, due to their bus coming late, resulting in cancellation of their bail and forfeiture of surety bond, furnished by petitioners--Amount of bond ordered to be recovered from each petitioner being excessive, was reduced from Rs.3,000 to Rs.500 in case of each petitioner in circumstances."

6. Keeping the above cited authorities in view I am of the opinion that the forfeiture of the amount of bonds imposed by the original Court have been reduced to considerable extent in each case keeping in view the circumstances of each case also. In this case, it cannot be said that in the abscondence of the said accused there is any connivance of the present petitioners because the said accused is stated to have committed the offence of murder and on that account he is now in the tribal territory. I, therefore, in the interest of justice, reduce the forfeiture amount of the bonds from Rs.10,000 to Rs.3,

000. With this modification the present Criminal Revision fails and is hereby dismissed. M.B.A./579/P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.