ABDUL SALAM Versus State

ORDER

1. AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- Through instant criminal revision application, the applicant has prayed for reduction of the amount of surety which has been forfeited by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in Sessions Case No.484/2011 who has been pleased to impose penalty amount of Rs.100,000 upon the present applicant/ surety.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a poor person who stood surety for accused Himath Ali and Altaf on humanitarian grounds and not on monetary benefits. He further submits that after absconsion of the accused persons the applicant has tried his utmost efforts but he could not succeed. Learned counsel further submits that the applicant/surety is a Pesh Imam and has no other source of income hence he prays for reduction of surety amount.

3. The learned A.P.G. has opposed the grant of application in the light of case of Zeeshan Kazmi.

4. Record shows that the accused Himath and Altaf were granted bail on 27-8-2011 where one Sudheer submitted his surety and the accused were released on bail. Later on said Sudheer filed an application for withdrawal of his surety which was accepted. Consequently, on 3-3-2012 applicant Abdul Salam submitted surety for accused Himath and Altaf which was accepted but later on, from 14-4-2012 both the accused have absconded away. Therefore, their bail bond was forfeited on 18-5-2012 and notice was issued against surety/applicant under section 514, Cr.P.C. which was served upon him and since then he has not been able to produce the accused persons before the trial Court. The accused persons have been declared proclaimed offenders by the trial Court and the learned trial Court has imposed full amount of surety vide impugned order above mentioned above. The Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State reported in PLD 1997 SC 267 has held as under:--

5. "Keeping in view the bleak scenario which has emerged with the passage of time on account of lack of respect for the rule of law and because of unprecedented continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in loss of money, the courts should not show any undue leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. The approach of the courts should be dynamic and progressive oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bond. There is no legal requirement that, full bail amount should not be forfeited. On the contrary, once an accused person jumps bail bonds the entire surety amount is liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances".

6. No reasonable cause or any effort to procure the attendance of the accused has been shown by the applicant which may require any interference by this Court in the impugned order which does not suffer from any error or illegality, hence no lenient view can be taken. The instant criminal revision application being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, at this juncture, submits that the applicant may be allowed to deposit the surety amount in four equal instalments. Learned A.P.G. in view of the dismissal of the instant revision application does not oppose such request. Accordingly, the applicant is allowed to furnish surety amount in four equal instalments within four months from the date of this order.

8. HBT/A-33/Sindh Revision dismissed.