' Succinctly narrated the facts of the case are that Nasib-ur-Rehman and Syed Ghulam petitioners stood sureties for Jirabaz accused involved in case F.I.R. No,77 dated 21-9-2003 registered at Police Station Miryan, District Bannu for offences under section 13, Arms Ordinance read with section 7 of Surrender of Illicit Arms Act. When summoned in the Court, accused Jirabaz did not appear and the sureties-appellants were given notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. On 9-7-2004 to which they submitted their reply. Learned Additional Sessions. Judge-IV, Bannu vide orders dated 17-9-2004 while taking lenient view, burdened the petitioners with amount of Rs,40,000 each and directed the S.H.O. To submit the list of movable property belonging to the sureties on or before 1-10-2004. The S.H.O. Submitted the requisite list. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bannu vide his order dated 1-10-2004 sentenced the petitioners for a period of six months' S.I.
2. Feeling aggrieved appellants have filed instant criminal appeal which is before me for consideration.
3. Mr. Zafarullah Khan, 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 Jirabaz out of benevolence, 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 Muhammad Shah and others v. The State 1994 PCr.LJ 2316 (Lahore), Amanullah and others v. The State 1997 PCr.LJ 1927, Muhammad Khan v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2028 and Shatab Khan and another v. The State PLD 1996 Lah.
600.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chaudhary learned Deputy Advocate-General 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 petitioners had become sureties they were under legal obligation to discharge their liability under bail bonds furnished by them. After undertaking the liability themselves, it does not lie in their mouth to say that on account of their financial condition, they cannot pay the amount of bond executed by them and had stood sureties 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, 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 unprecedent 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 of 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 forty thousands and I see no good reason to further reduce the amount of surety. The impugned order is correct, proper and legal PCi.
And does not call for interference of this Court in its appellate jurisdiction.
6. The appeal fails which is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to learned Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bannu.