SHAN MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE

' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- Briefly stated the facts of this revision petition are that a case F.I.R. No,402, dated 8-9-2008 was registered with Police Station Miana Gondal, District Mandi Bahaud-Din, for an offence under section 496-A, P.P.C. Against Arshad, Muhammad Khan, Muhammad Nazir, Ijaz, Javed, Umar Hayat and Qaisar Shah, with the allegation that they abducted wife of the complainant. One of the accused, namely, Javed, was granted pre-arrest bail and Shan Muhammad petitioner stood surety for him to the effect that he will produce the accused on each and every date of hearing. As the accused Javed failed to appear before the Court on 23-1-2009, the petitioner was issued show-cause notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. On 25-2-2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din forfeited the bail bonds of the surety and directed him to deposit Rs,40,000 in the Government Treasury. Against the said order, dated 25-2-2009, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity of producing the accused before the Court and a reference in this behalf may be made to section 502, Cr.P.C. Which clearly states that an opportunity is to be given to the surety to produce the accused in the Court and that the accused Javed was arrested on 12-2-2009 and thereafter he was granted bail on 6-3- 2009 and fresh bail bonds were furnished by another surety, as such, the order, dated 25-2-2009 cannot be sustained. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon the case of Ghulam Qadir Siyal v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 554.

3. On the other hand, the learned A.P-G. Has opposed this petition and stated that the surety was bound to produce the accused on the date of confirmation of bail but the accused failed to appear, as such, the bail bonds of the surety/petitioner were rightly forfeited.

4. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner had not been afforded any opportunity of producing the accused Javed before the Court but as the show-cause notice was issued to the surety/petitioner on 10-2-2009, the accused Javed was arrested on 12-2- 2009 and thereafter the order forfeiting the bail bonds of the surety/petitioner had been passed on 25-2-2009. Although no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner surety to produce the accused before the Court but it appears that the petitioner facilitated the arrest of the accused by producing him before the police. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, while passing the order dated 25-2-2009, has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has facilitated the arrest of the accused immediately on the issuance of the show-cause notice. Further, after the arrest of the accused on 12-2-2009, he was granted bail on 6-3-2009 and fresh bail bonds were furnished by another surety, as such, the petitioner stood absolved of his responsibility to produce the accused in Court, as has been held by this Court in the judgment reported in the case of Mukhtar Ali v. The State and others 1991 PCr.LJ 1625.

6. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, hence, the present criminal revision petition is accepted and the impugned order, dated 25-2-2009 is hereby set aside.