MUHAMMAD BUX Versus STATE

ORDER

Abdul Majeed accused was granted bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari vide order dated 18-8-1994 and was directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount. On 19-1-1995 in compliance to the said order Muhammad Bakhsh and Muhammad Asghar petitioners submitted the surety bonds in the Court for release of the said accused which were accepted and Abdul Majeed accused was released on bail.

2. The accused absented himself from Court on 8-12-1996 and surfaced on 22-12-1997. However, on I-11-1997 the surety bond was forfeited and notice was sent to the surety for 22-11-1997 on which date none appeared. On 22-12-1997 the accused appeared seeking pre-arrest bail, the petition was rejected and he was despatched to the judicial lock-up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The sureties appeared before the Court on 15-1-1998 and they accepted their liability and begged to be pardoned. They did not give any reason or explanation. Their statements were recorded on 15-1-1998. Thereafter, they were ordered to deposit Rs.50,000 each in the Government treasury on or before 17-2-1998.

3. Through the present petition the sureties have challenged the impugned order and the main thrust of learned counsel for the petitioners is that vide order dated 1-11-1997 only Muhammad Bakhsh surety was given notice when his bond was forfeited while Muhammad Asghar surety was not given any notice before forfeiting his bond. However, on 15-1-1998 when Muhammad Asghar appeared before the Court he accepted his liability and did not raise any objection that he had not been served with a notice before the forfeiture of the bond. He admitted that the accused for whom he was surety had absented himself and he begged to be pardoned. From the perusal of the interim orders of the Court, it reveals that almost for complete one year the accused remained absent and as a last resort the bail bonds were forfeited and non-bailable warrants for arrest of Abdul Majeed accused were issued.

4. Both the sureties have not shown any extraordinary reason whereby they could be exonerated of their liability neither they have made any request that the amount of forfeited bond be reduced nor have they claimed insolvency. The conduct of the accused which is apparent from the interim order sheet indicates that he has been deliberately absenting without any legal or moral justification and has not shown any respect towards the Court which is another factor weighing and influencing while deciding this criminal revision filed by the petitioners. This petition is without force and is, thus, dismissed. The petitioners are directed to deposit in Government treasury the amount of forfeited surety bonds within one week from today. The record is directed to be returned to the learned Trial Court alongwith a copy of order disposing of the current revision filed by the sureties.

N.B.T./M-599/L Petition dismissed.