HIDAYAT ULLAH Versus State

ORDER

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.--- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner stood surety for accused Shakoor Syed alias Shakoor, resident of Manikal Darel, District Diamer, who later on went underground and yet not traceable. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment/order of the learned trial Court is not only arbitrary but also devoid of any reasoning as a compromise was effected between the legal heirs of deceased and the accused. The statements of legal heirs of the deceased were recorded by the trial Court on 25-11-2015. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that the forfeiture of surety bonds is not justified in the above circumstances and prays that the order/ judgment dated 05-12-2018 be set aside in the larger interest of justice. The learned counsel relied on PLD 1996 Lahore 600, 2005 YLR 1602 and Cr. Revision 08/ 2014.

2. On the other hand the learned Dy. Advocate General defended the judgment/order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the petitioner was bound to produce the accused in the Court as per the terms and conditions set forth in the surety bonds. The petitioner was given sufficient time to produce the accused but he failed to do and no option was left with the learned trial Court except to forfeit the surety bonds. The learned Dy. Advocate General relied on 2004 SCMR 211.

3. Heard and the relevant law also examined in the light of the judgments of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. In case reported in 1990 SCMR 1092, the surety amount in a case of 3/4 of EHO-1979 was reduced from 10,00000 to 800000 and Supreme Court declined to interfere. Likewise in an another case of narcotics the surety amount was reduced from 50,000 to 40,000 and Supreme Court up held the judgment and the above judgment is reported in 1990 SCMR 1313. In another case reported in 1994 SCMR 690, the entire amount of Rs. 50,000 was forfeited. The High Court reduced the surety amount to Rs.20,000, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, There are certain other precedent cases reported in PLD 1995 SC 348, 1996 SCMR 244 and 1996 SCMR 695, which provides guideline for forfeiture of surety bonds.

4. Since a compromise has been affected between the parties as stated at bar, the genuiness/otherwise of the same is yet to be determined by the learned trial Court. In my humble opinion a case of lenient view has been made out.

5. In view of above discussion, I, accept the instant revision petition and reduce the surety amount from Rs.300000 to Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand). The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount in the trial Court within

10 days, failing to which the learned trial Court would at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

6. Petition disposed of in the above terms. File be consigned to record after completion.

SA/206/GB Order accordingly.