' The petitioners Noor Muhammad, etc. Through this Criminal Revision have challenged the order dated 10-5-2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hasilpur by which the learned Judge while initiating proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Against the petitioners forfeited the surety bonds furnished by them in the sum of Rs.50,000 each, directing the petitioners to deposit Rs.15,000 each.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that petitioners stood sureties for Muhammad Ali, Bashir Ahmad, Abbas Ali and Haq Nawaz in interim pre-arrest bail (Case F.I.R. No.46 of 2004 under sections 324/34, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. Qaimpur, Tehsil Hasilpur) and the petitioners furnished their surety bonds (Annex. C, D, E & F) in the sum of Rs.50,000 each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge. The above-mentioned accused persons on 20-3-2004 did not appear in Court in their bail application which was dismissed for non-prosecution, bail bonds submitted by the petitioners were ordered to be forfeited in favour of the State and petitioners were issued show-cause notices (Annex. H, I, J and K) to the effect that as to why the surety amount should not be recovered from them. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners submitted their joint written reply/explanation (Annex. L).
However, not satisfied with their explanation, the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the petitioners liable to pay the amount of surety and by taking a lenient view the petitioners were directed to deposit Rs.15,000 each instead of total surety amount of Rs.50,000 each. This order is now being assailed in this Criminal Revision.
3. The only plea taken in support of this petition is that the bail bonds annexed with this petition were only for the next date of hearing which was 18-3-2004 and for any subsequent default in appearance by the accused Muhammad Ali, etc., the petitioners were not liable to pay the amount of surety. Reliance is placed on the case "Zulfiqar Ahmad v. The State and another" (PLD 2001 Lahore 545); "Abdul Hafiz v. The State" (1993 MLD 541) and "Sardar Muhammad v. The State" (1998 PCr.LJ Lah. 236).
4. The above contention of the learned counsel is not sustainable in law as well as the facts. A perusal of the surety bonds (Annex. C to F) would make it clear that petitioners had undertaken to produce to the accused in Court on all the subsequent dates till the final disposal of the case hence, they were liable for the absence of the accused subsequent to the date i.e. 18-3-2004 as mentioned in the surety bonds. The case relied upon by the learned counsel is therefore, not helpful to the petitioners because in all the above-mentioned authorities, the surety bonds submitted were for some specified date and language of those surety bonds did not provide for the production of accused on all the subsequent dates or till the decision of the matter. It was rather in view of the direction of this Court in the case "Zulfiqar Ahmad v. The State and another" (PLD 2001 Lahore 545) cited above that the tenor and the language of the surety bonds were suitably amended so as to include the responsibility of the sureties for the production of the accused in Court on all the subsequent dates other than the date given by the Court and till the decision of the matter. This being the legal position, the learned counsel finally argued that the amount of surety directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, be reduced but, I am not inclined to accede to this prayer of the learned counsel as the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already taken a lenient view and reduced the amount from Rs.50,000 each to Rs.15,000 each. Further reduction in the amount would amount to giving a licence to the persons who stand sureties either without knowing the consequences or with a mala fide object of siding with the accused in making good their escape during pendency of the trial and it was in these circumstances that the language of the surety bonds was subsequently amended, so as to stop the tendency of remaining absent or to abscond during trial by making nominal payment of surety amounts which are easily reduced by the Court on humanitarian grounds. This Court cannot encourage such a tendency rather the same should be curbed strictly without showing any leniency.
5. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Revision .