REHMAT ALI Versus THE STATE

1. In this Criminal Revision Application the order, dated 12‑7‑1987 of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar has teen challenged.

2. The facts are that applicant Rehmat Ali stood surety for accused Mohammad Hanif in Zina Hudood Ordinance case pending in the Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar. The accused has absconded. A notice was given to the applicant and he has not been able to produce the accused, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has imposed penalty of Rs.10,000 on the applicant. Mr. Nisar Alam Rana contended that the applicant is a poor man and he stood surety on the humanitarian grounds without any monetary benefit. He has referred to the cases reported in P L D 1983 SC 47, 1983 P Cr. L J 137, 1986 P Cr. L J 2028 and P L D 1987 Kar. 267 and submitted that normally 1/5th of the surety amount is recovered in these cases.

3. Mr. Syed Riaz Ahmed learned counsel for the State submitted that the‑trial Court has already taken lenient view. It is an admitted position that applicant Rehmat Ellahi stood surety for accused Mohammad Hanif and bail bond was fixed at Rs.20,000 and accused has absconded from May, 1986 and is not likely to be arrested. Recently the tendency has developed that after the release of bail accused absconded and then surety comes to reduction of amount on so many considerations. In the present case the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already taken lenient view and his order in the circumstances that accused is not likely to be arrested is a proper one. In the case of Mazari v. The State P L D 1987 Kar. 267 the amount was reduced from 10,000 to 4,000. It is made clear that no such ratio has been fixed by any Court. Each case has been decided on its own merits and the circumstances. This revision having no merit is dismissed. Mr. Nisar Rana requests for 2 months time to pay the amount. Request is granted.

4. S. A./R‑37/K Revision dismissed.