GUL MUHAMMAD Versus State

ORDER

This single order will dispose of Crl. Rev. Nos. 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 470 and 471 of 2004, as the subject matter and the parties are same and also the same law point is involved in these revision petitions.

2. Instant revision petitions are directed against the order dated 2-9-2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Mianchannu, whereby he reduced the amount of penalty to 50 % of the amount of surety bond.

3. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioner Gul Muhammad stood surety for the accused persons in F.I.R. No.149 of 2000 under sections 380/497/411, P.P.C. registered at Police Station, Sadar Mianchannu' and afterwards the accused persons, absented themselves from the Court. Consequently the bail bonds worth, Rs.30,000 were forfeited and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. were initiated against the surety/petitioner. This order was impugned before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge upon which the order passed by the learned trial Court to the extent of forfeiture of the bail bonds and imposition of penalty was not interfered however, the amount of penalty was reduced to 50 % of the amount of the surety bond hence, this revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is against the spirit of legal maxim "audi alteram partem" as the same was passed in the absence of the petitioner and the same is also the result of misreading and non- reading of record. Further submits that the petitioner stood surety on humanitarian ground and not for consideration and he tried his level best for production of the accused persons in the Court to face the trial. He has relied on "Muhammad Khan v. The State" 1986 PCr.LJ 2028; "Ali Akbar v. The Statt" '1986 PCr.LJ 611 and "Ahmad Sher Bhatti v. The State" 1985 PCr.LJ 1975.

5. Learned Law Officer when confronted to the situation about reduction of 'bail bond' amount confiscated half heartedly opposed the case.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Admittedly the accused persons for whom, the petitioner Gul Muhammad stood surety' absented from the trail Court and petitioner faile4 to produce them in spite of several opportunities given to him. Thereafter he himself did not bother to appear before the trial Court and was proceeded against ex parte. Therefore, trial Court was justified to impose penalty upon him. However, it appears that petitioner stood surety only on humanitarian ground and not for any monetary benefit and even no connivance about disappearance of accused persons had been alleged against him. Following the dictum laid down in "Muhammad Khan v. The State" 1986 PCr.LJ 2028, I am constrained to observe that balance should have been kept between undue leniency and undue severity by taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioner. The petitioner is an old man and seems to had been trapped by accused persons who disappeared from the trial Court.

7. For what has been discussed above, it, is held that impugned' order dated 2-9-2003 with regard to forfeiture of bail bonds and imposition of penalty" does not call for any interference and same is maintained and these revision petitions stand dismissed. However the amount of penalty is further reduced from Rs.15,000 to Rs.5,000 in each case in the interest of justice.

N.H.Q./G-105/L Penalty reduced.