MUNIR AHMAD Versus THE STATE
This revision-petition is directed against the order of learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, dated 9 9-1987 forfeiting bail bond executed by the petitioner (for the appearance of Imran Mirza, accused in Court) and directing him to make payment of the amount of surety bound by 10-10-1987.
2. The facts leading to this petition briefly are that Imran Mirza, accused, was arrested and challaned alongwith his mother etc. under sections 148, 382 and 302 read with 149, PPC. Mr. Nusrat Hussain Qureshi, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, ordered his release on bail subject to his furnishing two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2 Lakh each. The petitioner stood surety for his appearance in Court and executed a bond in the sum of Rs. 2 Lakh undertaking that he would pay the surety amount in case the accused failed to appear in Court. It so happened that the accused did not appear on 12-7-1987 and also thereafter. A warrant of arrest was, therefore, issued by the Court against him on 2-8-1987 for 30-8-1987. Simultaneously a notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. was issued against the petitioner/surety for that date. The accused could not be arrested, however, the petitioner having appeared on 30-8-1987 and admitting execution of surety bond prayed for time to produce the accused in Court. Time was allowed to him till 9 9-1987. On that date he did not appear due to illness and the accused (Imran Mirza) was also not produced. Learned trial Court, therefore, proceeding ex parte forfeited petitioner's surety bond observing that no reason had been shown against its forfeiture. It further directed him to pay full amount of the bond by 10 10-1987, hence this revision.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not challenged the impugned order on merits but submitted that the accused concerned, namely, Imran Mirza has since been produced by his mother before Superintendent of Police, Cantonment, Lahore, at his (petitioner's) instance; that he had neither derived any monetary gain by standing as surety foi the accused nor had he connived at his ascendance and that he stood surety out of sheer sympathy as fellow citizen and a neighbour of the accused, therefore, the penalty imposed on him may be reduced as the same is quite harsh. Reliance is placed on Dildar's case PLD 1963 SC 47. Learned State counsel does not deny that Imran Mirza, accused, had been arrested due to the efforts made by the petitioner. Learned lower Court has not found that the petitioner/surety had derived any benefit for becoming surety of Imran Mirza, accused. In these circumstances, I find that the petitioner deserves reduction of the amount of penalty imposed on him by learned Sessions Judge by means of forfeiting his surety bond. Consequently, I A reduce, the amount to be recovered from the petitioner, as penalty, to a sum of Rs. 5,000. This shall be paid by the petitioner in the trial Court by or before lfj-2-1988. The revision petition stands disposed of in the terms indicated above.
H.B.T./M-547/L. Order accordingly.