GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. After I heard this revision at some length Mr. Muhammad Sharif Sial, made a statement that his client is prepared to deposit four thousand rupees towards forfeiture of the two bonds executed by the applicant as a surety for the two accused in the case before the trial Court. The applicant had executed bonds of Rs.10 thousand each as surety in the case for two accused who were facing trial under sections 457 and 380 and section 9 of Hudood Ordinance, 1979. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the State that after the bond was forfeited by the learned trial Court for the entire amount of bond the applicant produced the two accused in Court and they have been remanded in judicial custody. In view of the fact that after the default in appearance was made by the accused and their bail bonds were cancelled the applicant assn surety caused attendance of the accused in Court and they were remanded in the judicial custody the learned Judge was not justified m ordering forfeiture of the entire amount of bonds in the circumstances of the case. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant had stood surety for the two accused for any beneficial purposes. Keeping in view the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dildar v. The State P L D 1963 SC 47, I modify the order of the learned trial Court and direct that a sum of Rs.2,000 each will be recovered from the applicant on account of forfeiture of two bonds. The revision application stands disposed of accordingly.

2. N.H.Q./G-342/K Penalty reduced.