Chaudhry Muhammad Taj, J.--This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 6.11.2004.
2. The facts are that the appellants stood surety for accused Muhammad Tariq in a case registered against him and other accused persons under Section 302 APC while executing a bail bond of rupees five lac individually and jointly. The accused after release absconded. The proceedings under Section 514 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the appellants and thereafter bail bonds were forfeited. Resultantly, the sureties were ordered to deposit rupees five lac in ten installments vide order dated 30.6.2004 by the trial Court. This order was challenged before the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The Shariat Court dismissed the appeal vide impugned order.
3. Ch. Muhammad Mahfooz, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the appellants are poor persons and cannot be burdened with this heavy amount. It was also argued that the appellants. the sureties, had no person monetary interest in executing surety bonds in favour of the accused neither it came into light through any inquiry, therefore, a lenient view may be taken against them. The learned counsel referred to the following authorities in support of his assertions:--
1. Ghulam Haider and others vs. Karim Bakhsh and another [PLD 1963 SC 46);
2. Muhammad Jamil and another vs. The State (1986 P.Cr. LJ. 2029), and
3. Muhammad Sultan vs. The State (1994 M LD 122).
4. Sardar Abdul Razzik Khan, the learned Additional Advocate-General, opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the ground that it is admitted on behalf of the appellants that they stood surety for the accused in a double murder case who has absconded, therefore, the trial Court passed the order for realization of the amount of Surety bond. The order has been upheld by the Shariat Court. There is no legal ground warranting interference in the order recorded by the lower Court.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The learned Judge in the Shariat Court while rejecting the appeal recorded following observations:-- "It is the consistent view of the superior Courts of AJ&K that an accused involved in a murder case disappears after grant of bail and does not-come forward to face the trial, his surety does not deserve any leniency in the matter of deduction of his bail bond and the entire surety amount becomes liable to confiscation. Keeping in view the fact that a very large number of accused/persons jump bail bonds, therefore, extraordinary measures should be taken to handle such extraordinary situation while applying stringent measures and the lenient view should be discouraged. In this regard, I am fortified by an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court of AJ&K titled Muhammad Ayub vs. Muzaffar Khan & another (Criminal. Appeal No, 59/2003 decided on 11.10.2004). wherein the sureties were ordered to deposit the entire amount of surety bonds inspite of his being a Civil Servant.
In a case titled Muhammad Safeer vs. Faqir Khan & 2 others, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has also enunciated the principle that on account of abscondence of the accused, the whole amount of surety has to be forfeited and deduction of the amount of bail bonds will not be inconsonance with law.
Coming to the instant case no grounds are, therefore. made out to set aside the impugned order.
The trial Court has exercised its discretion equitably and justly which does not warrant any interference by this Court."
6. We have carefully considered the arguments addressed at bar and also gone through the orders passed by the Courts below including the case law cited at bar. It is admitted on behalf of the appellants that they stood surety for the said accused who was involved in a double murder case. The accused has absconded and so far has not been arrested. A tendency has developed from the last few years that accused after securing bails abscond and thus do not face the trial.
Therefore, any leniency in this regard to the sureties would encourage the practice. In order to enforce supremacy of law, the administration of justice demands that the strict observation of the provisions may be undertaken. The law does not lean in favour of the sureties in such eventuality.
We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, therefore, we do not interfere as the same does not warrant particularly when the order has been recorded keeping in view the law applicable therein.
7. In view of the above, the appeal merits no consideration which is dismissed. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the case in hand as such is not discussed.