P(ISAR AHMED Versus STATE

ORDER

1. The above two Criminal Revision Applications under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. have been filed by the applicant surety Nisar Ahmed as the points involved in the above revision applications are common therefore these Criminal Revision Applications are. hereby disposed of by common order.

2. The abovenamed applicant had stood surety for accused Ghulam Hussain Machi in 2 cases one under sections 401, 393 , P. P. C in the sum of Rs. One lac and. another case under section 13-D, Arms Ordinance in the sum of Rs.50,000. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant/surety that the accused Ghulam Hussain absented himself before the trial Court since 6-3-2000 when the bonds were forfeited and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was issued against the applicant/surety in above cases. It is further contended that after service of the notice the surety appeared before the trial Court and submitted his explanation and the time was sought by the applicant to produce the accused in the trial Court but he failed to produce the accused in the trial Court and the applicant/surety was directed to pay the full amount of the bond and in case of failure warrant of attachment for recovery of surety amount will be issued.

3. The order, dated 31-5-2000 passed by the learned trial Court was challenged before the Sessions Court in Criminal Appeal No. 28 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No.29 of 2000 and the Appellate Court had also rejected the prayer of the applicant/surety. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the applicant/surety that he has not stood surety for any other consideration except on the humanitarian ground and, therefore, some lenient view may be taken against the applicant/surety. The learned counsel for the applicant/surety replied on a case of Sher Ale and another v. The State reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 94 and another authority in case of Dilshad Ahmed and others v. The State 2000 PCr. LJ 172.

4. Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Khan Korai, Advocate on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer for reduction of surety amount as the applicant/surety was given full opportunity to produce the accused in the trial Court, but he failed to produce the accused in the trial Court as well as the applicant has tailed to produce the accused in the Appellate Court and the impugned order passed by two Courts below are based on solitary grounds.

5. I have gone through the impugned orders as well as the R & Ps of the cases. It is apparent from the record that the applicant/surety was given full opportunity to submit his explanation and to produce the accused but the applicant/surety, however, tailed to produce the accused in the trial Court.

6. In the case reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 1201 (Karachi) my brother, Mr. Justice Muhammad Roshan Essani, J. has held as under:--

7. "It is well-settled that bail is nothing but change of custody, that the accused was placed in the custody of surety and he was responsible for production of accused before the Court then the surety would be liable to penalty under law."

8. In the case reported in 2000 SCMR 312 it was held as under:

9. "S.514-Abscondence of accused-- Forfeiture of surety bond -- Procedure---Forefeiture of surety bond had to be the extent of the full amount of surety bond would not be in consonance with law."

10. In this authority the Hon'ble apex Court had relied upon the authority of case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267 and Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and others PLD 1998 S650.

11. In the` light of ratio of aforesaid authorities the applicant is not entitled for any leniency as he failed to produce the accused being responsible for production of accused before the Court of law.

12. Under these circumstances and the dicta taken into consideration by Hon'ble apex Court, I do not find any merits in the above Criminal Revision Applications which are hereby dismissed. The applicant should deposit the full amount of surety bond within a period of two months. In case of failure the trial Court is required to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. The R & Ps may be sent to the trial Court.

13. N.H.Q./N-56/K Revision petition dismissed.