MUHAMMAD YASIN Versus STATE

ORDER

1. This revision application under section 439, Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14th May, 1989 of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge Mirpur Khas, whereby the applicant Muhammad Yasin surety has been directed to pay fine of Rs.20,000.

2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision application are that applicant Muhammad Yasin stood surety for accused Dost Muhammad and furnished bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000 on 16-10-1984 in a murder case. Accused Dost Muhammad absconded from the Court since 20-10-1988. The notice was issued and served on applicant who appeared before learned Additional Sessions Judge on 4-3-1989 and requested for time. His request was granted in spite of that he failed to produce the accused therefore, his bail bonds were forfeited and he is directed. to pay fine as stated above.

3. I have heard Mr .Sardar Muhammad Ishaque for the applicant. It is argued that applicant stood surety for Dost Muhammad who is his caste fellow and has not taken any monetary benefit from him. It is submitted that whereabouts of Dost Muhammad are not known and there is general talk in their community that he has been kidnapped. He has submitted that in view of case reported in P L D 1963 S C 47 a fine may be reduced to 1/5th of the bail bond.

4. None present for State, no request for adjournment.

5. Accused Dost Muhammad absconded in murder case. Applicant was given notice and time to produce the accused but he has failed to do so without proper explanation. It is an admitted position that accused Dost Muhammad is caste fellow and relative to the applicant/surety. Nowadays in number of cases it appears that after getting bail the accused abscond and their counsel appear and pray for leniency. Accused Dost Muhammad was being tried for murder case and he misused concession of bail. It is responsibility of the surety to produce and cause attendance of the accused in the Court. The surety should have considered all these aspects before executing the bond. Accused Dost Muhammad has absconded and in view of the statement of the learned counsel he could not be arrested and false plea has been taken that he had been kidnapped, the learned counsel has not been able to produce any document including FIR to show that Dost Muhammad was kidnapped. The ratio of the 1/5th as argued by the learned counsel has not been decided by the Supreme Court but in that particular case some leniency was shown. This case does not require any leniency or no cogent reason has been shown for the reduction of 'the amount. The order of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Khas calls for no interference as there is no illegality or irregularity in the order. The revision is dismissed.

6. N.H.Q./Q-9/K

7. Revision dismissed.