FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE Muhammad Akbar Tarar , Rana Ahmad Saeed

One Gul Nawaz was granted bail in case F.I. R. No. 38/87 under section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 of Police Station Ahmad Nagar, District Gujranwala. Fateh Muhammad and Ghulam Rasul had stood sureties for him. Gul Nawaz absented on 19‑3‑1988. The sureties and the accused were issued notices. The sureties produced Gul Nawaz on the next date of hearing. Learned trial Court issued notice to the sureties to show cause why their bail bonds be not confiscated, on Gul Nawaz having absented.

2. On appearance of the sureties, Ghulam Rasul was absolved of the responsibility but action was taken against Fateh Muhammad, in that a sum of Rs.5,000 was directed to be confiscated from his surety bond. One of the reasons which weighed with learned trial Court was that he was father of the accused.

3. Feeling aggrieved, Fateh Muhammad has challenged the order of the trial Court passed on 19‑3‑1988.

4. In this case the absence of the accused had occurred only for one gate. The accused was produced by the surety on the next date of hearing, which shows that the surety was alive to his responsibilities and he acted promptly on receiving notice. Although strictly speaking in accordance with law he could be held liable for the accused having absented on one date yet the prompt response and attention paid by the petitioner to procure the attendance of the accused go a long way to prove his bona fides. As such the confiscation of amount of Rs.5,000 from his surety bond seems to be really severe and harsh. In such a situation a token confiscation could have been sufficient, so that the people remain alive to their responsibilities.

In the circumstances, the amount of sum of Rs.5,000 confiscated from the surety bond of the petitioner is reduced to a sum of Rs.500 (Rupees five hundred only).

The petition is disposed of with the above reduction in the confiscated amount.

S.A./F‑84/L Confiscated amount reduced.