MUHAMMAD HANIF Versus THE STATE

This application by Muhammad Hanif and Said Muhammad, herein applicants/sureties, under section 439, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Burewala, dated 15‑1‑1992, whereby he forfeited bail bond furnished by the applicants and directed them to deposit Rs.25,000 each in the treasury within a period of one month of passing of the impugned order.

2. The facts, briefly stated, giving rise to this revision application arc; that .one Sarwar was accused of case under section 302/338, P.P.C., registered at Police Station City Burewala. He was granted bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Burewala in the sum of Rs.25,000 with two sureties, each, in the like amount. The applicants Muhammad Hanif and Said Muhammad stood surety for the aforesaid accused. The aforesaid accused absented during trial. The bail bonds of the applicants, accordingly, were forfeited and by the impugned order they were directed to deposit Rs.25,000 each.

3. On behalf of the applicants, it is contended that the revision petition is being pressed only with respect to quantum of forfeited surety‑amount. According to the learned counsel in view of rule laid down in Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47), the forfeited amount must have been 1/5th of the whole amount contained in the surety bond. It was further submitted that the applicants have stood surety on account of benevolence and not for any monetary consideration. Mr. Sikandar Tariq, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, does not controvert this position.

4. Keeping in view the rule laid down in Dildar and another's case, supra, and the circumstances of the case, I accept this revision petition, reduce the forfeited amount of Rs.25,000 to Rs. 5,000 in each case. Otherwise the impugned order is maintained. This revision application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

N.H.Q./365/L Order accordingly,