MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus State
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.---- This judgment shall also dispose of criminal Revision No.44 of 2005 filed by Mehrban Khan petitioner whereby order dated 1-8-2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, D.I. Khan has been called in question as the petitioners were penalized in the sum of Rs.20,000 for standing sureties for accused Shah Alain in a case registered under sections 324/148/ 149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.50 dated 16-6-2003 at Police Station, Kirri Khaisore.
2. The facts in brief appear to be that petitioners stood sureties for accused Shah Alain and executed such bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 each. However, after having been released on bail, said accused Shah Alain remained absent and the sureties were asked to produce the said accused. Since they failed to produce the accused in Court, therefore, they were given notices under section 514, Cr.P.C. Ultimately, vide impugned order, they were burdened to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 each or in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners maintained that the impugned order is harsh and the financial condition of the petitioners has not been taken into consideration while imposing penalty, that the petitioners stood surety for accused Shah Alam out of benevolence, without any monetary gain; that the imposition ofnapenalty was improper, unjust and unreasoble; that no inquiry was made to ascertain if the petitioners had any direct interest with the accused and that while imposing penalty, a balance should have been made between undue leniency and undue severity which was not made. He relied on Muhammad Shah and others v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 2316 Lahore), Amanullah and others v. The State (1997 PCr.LJ 1927), Muhammad Khan v. The State (1986 PCr.LJ 2028) and Shatab Khan and another v. The State (PLD 1996 Lahore 600).
4. On the other hand, S. Abid Hussain Bukhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposed the petition and contended that the learned Court has already taken a lenient view in the matter and the impugned order hardly warrants interference.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that for whatever reason the petitioners had become sureties, they were under legal obligation to discharge their liability under the bail bond furnished by them. After undertaking the liability themselves, it does not lie in their mouth to say that on account of their financial condition, they cannot pay the amount of bond executed by them and stood sureties of the accused out of benevolence and without any monetary gain. There is no legal embargo that the amount of bail bond in full cannot be forfeited. In a case where an accused person jumps bail bond the entire surety amount becomes liable to confiscation. The surety is liable to produce the accused in Court in view of his undertaking. In case of Zeshan Kazmi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 267), it was held.
"Once an accused person jumps bail bond, entire surety amount becomes liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances Courts in view of bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the unprecedent continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value should not show any leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. Approach of Courts should be dynamic and progressive-oriented with the desire to discharge the accused persons to jump bail bond."
It was also held in Muhammad Aslant and another v. The State (2004 SCMR 211) that no lenient view to be taken in the matters of sureties and the entire amount of the bail bond be recovered as an amount of penalty as it encourages the people to go into abscondence.
In the case in hand, the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the amount of surety bond from Rupees fifty thousands to Rupees twenty thousands and I see no good reason to further reduce the amount of surety. The impugned order is correct, proper and legal and does not call for interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
6. The Criminal revisions fail which are hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV D.I. Khan.
H.B.T./45/P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revisions dismissed.