' Umar Ali and Noorani Khan petitioners have filed instant criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. Challenging the order of learned Sessions Judge, Bannu dated 8-10-2003 whereby penalty of Rs,1,00,000 each was imposed on the petitioners under section 514, Cr.P.C. And they were directed to pay the said amount upto 30-10-2003.
2. Shortly narrated the facts are that accused Tore Khan son of Niaz Khan, resident of Gharha Baka Khel, District Bannu was arrested in case F.I.R. No,22, dated 6-4-2003 registered at Police Station, Miryan, Bannu for offences under sections 302/324/148/149/429, P.P.C. The petitioners furnished surety bond in the sum of Rs,3,00,000 each and consequently, he was released on bail. During the trial of the case, accused Tore Khan absconded and failed to appear before the trial Court. The petitioners were served with the requisite show-cause notice as to why the amount of bail bond should not be recovered from them. They submitted their replies and expressed their inability to produce the accused before the Court. Resultantly, keeping in view the financial status of the sureties, the surety amount was reduced from Rupees three lacs to Rupees one lac each. The petitioners were directed to pay the said amount till 30-12-2003. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Mr. Yousaf Haroon, Advocate for the petitioners maintained that the impugned order is harsh and the financial condition of the petitioners has not been taken into consideration while imposing penalty; that the petitioners stood surety for accused Tore Khan out of benevolence and close relationship, without any monetary gain; that the imposition of penalty was improper, unjust and unreasonable; that no inquiry was made to ascertain if the petitioners had any direct interest with the accused or that absconsion of the accused was with their connivance and that while imposing penalty, a balance should have been made between undue leniency and undue severity which was not made. He relied on unreported judgment of this Court, dated 15-1-2004 in Criminal Revision No,35 of 2003..
4. On the other hand, Mr. Ehsanul Haq Malik, Advocate for the State opposed the petition and contended that the learned Court has already taken a lenient view in the matter and the impugned order hardly warrants interference.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find that for whatever reason the petitioner had become surety, he was under legal obligation to discharge his liability under the bail bond furnished by him. After undertaking the liability himself, it does not lie in his mouth to say that on account of his financial condition, he cannot pay the amount of bond executed by him and stood surety of the accused out of benevolence and without any monetary gain. There is no legal embargo that the amount of bail bond in full cannot be forfeited. In a case where an accused person jumps bail bond, the entire surety amount becomes liable to confiscation. The surety is liable to produce the accused in Court in view of his undertaking. In case of Zeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267 it was held:-- "Once an accused person jumps bail bond, the entire surety amount become liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. Courts in view of bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the precedent continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, should not show any leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. Approach of Courts should be dynamic and progressive-oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bond."
' It was also held in Muhammad Aslam and another v. The State 2004 SCM R 211 that no lenient view to be taken in the matters of sureties and the entire amount of the bail bond be recovered as an amount of penalty as it encourages the people to go into abscondence.
In the case in hand, the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by reducing the amount of surety bond from Rupees three lacs to Rupees one lac and I see no good reason to further reduce the amount of surety. The impugned order is correct, proper and legal and does not call for interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
6. The revision petition fails which is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court.