SAFES BIBI Versus MUHAMMAD LATIF

The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioner stood surety in the sum of Rs. 30,000 of Muhammad Ashraf who was involved in a case under section 302, P.P.C.. The case was entrusted for trial to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat, who issued notice to the accused for 3‑8‑1987. On the said date the accused did not appear, therefore, the learned trial Court adjourned the case to 30‑8‑1987 with the direction that a notice to the accused as well as the petitioner who was surety, be issued for 30‑8‑1987. On the said date, neither the accused nor the surety-entered appearance, therefore, the case was adjourned to 21‑9‑1987 with the direction that the bail bond be forfeited and a notice to the accused as well as the petitioner be issued. Again, neither the surety nor the accused entered appearance, therefore, the case was adjourned to 13‑10‑1987. On the said date, the petitioner Ghulam Rasool entered appearance but the accused was absent, therefore, he was directed to show cause why the amount of surety bond be not realised as he had failed to produce the accused and the case was adjourned to 27‑10‑1987. On the said date the accused entered appearance but the petitioner did not appear nor any explanation was submitted by him, therefore, the learned trial Court confiscated the entire amount and directed that the same be realised from the petitioner.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to produce the accused. Submits that the petitioner was asked to submit his reply, he produced the accused and thought that there was no need to submit reply any more.

2. I have heard learned counsel and perused the record. The petitioner stood surety of an accused who was involved in a murder case. He, on two different dates of hearing was afforded an opportunity to submit reply as well as to produce the accused but he failed to do so. On the last date of hearing the petitioner did not even bother to appear nor any request on his behalf was received by the trial Court explaining the cause of his absence. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court had no choice but to pass the said order.

From the perusal of proceedings it has also transpired that the learned trial Court also did not make any effort to hold an inquiry to ascertain whether I the petitioner had any interest through financial or blood with the accused. He has also not tried to find out whether the absence of the accused was with the connivance of the petitioner or otherwise. The trial Court has also not tried to ascertain whether the absence of the accused was beyond his control or not because it has been stated at the bar that the accused was employed in the Pakistan Army. He was not granted leave, therefore, did not appear.

3. Keeping the above narrated circumstances in mind and relying upon, Dildar and another v. State P L D 1963 SC 47, I reduce the forfeiture of bonds from Rs. 30,000 to Rs.5,000 only. The bonds shall be forfeited to the extent of Rs. 5,000. With this reduction in the forfeiture of bonds, the revision is disposed of.

M.Y.H./G‑245/L

Petition partly allowed.