MUHAMMAD RASHID Versus STATE
This revision petition arises out of the order, dated 23-10-1991 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura whereby he directed the petitioner No.l to pay Rs.5,000 and the petitioner No.2 to pay Rs.3,000 of the surety bond which was ordered to be forfeited by the Court.
2. The brief facts of this revision are that petitioner No.l was involved in a case under section 435, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.215, dated 3-5-1991 registered at Police Station Khanqah Dogran, District Sheikhupura at the instance of one Mst. Naziran, alongwith other co-accused. The petitioner No.l and other accused were allowed interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sheikhupura subject to submission of bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety and the case was adjourned to 13-5-1991. The bail bond was submitted on 9-5-1991. After two three days of hearing due to non-availability of the record, the bail application was adjourned to 17-6-1991 when the petitioner did not appear in the Court, according to the learned counsel, he having fallen ill. The petitioner absented from the Court on 17-6-1991 without any intimation to the Court, so his application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed and the interim bail already granted was recalled. It was also argued that the absence of the petitioner from the Court was without any just and lawful excuse and, therefore, surety bond submitted by the surety should be forfeited to the State. Notices were issued to the petitioners as required by law which were served upon them. The learned Court found that the absence of the petitioners was intentional and deliberate and manifestly they had no explanation' to make for their absence from the Court on 17-6-1991 and, therefore, the bail bonds of petitioner No.l as well as petitioner No.2 were forfeited and the amount of Rs.5,000 was imposed upon petitioner No.l, accused of that case and Rs.3,000 upon petitioner No.2 who stood surety.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order without complying with the relevant provision of law, and forfeited the bond of the petitioners which is contrary to law. Neither any show-cause notice was given to petitioner No.2 nor he was given an opportunity to produce the proof of the petitioner's admission in hospital. Hence it was submitted that the order dated 23-10-1991 is not sustainable under the law.
4. Mr. Subha Saeed, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State, frankly states that in the circumstances of the present case, this Court may take a liberal view and reduce the amount to be recovered from the petitioners on account of forfeiture of the bond.
5. I find from the record that the petitioner No.l did not appear before the learned trial Court on 17-6-1991 without any reason and nor he produced the medical certificate of his admission before the learned trial Court. If he had really fallen ill as per certificate attached with this criminal revision he should have produced the same before the learned trial Court. No grounds are, therefore, made out to set aside the order impugned in this revision petition. A However, the petitioner, therefore, produced by the surety himself, so I am inclined to further reduce the amount to be forfeited under the bond to a sum of Rs3,000 instead of Rs.5,000 and in the sum of Rs.1,000 instead of Rs.3,000 of both the petitioners respectively.
This revision petition is accordingly allowed only to the extent stated above.
N.H.Q./M-1418/L Penalty reduced.