Through the instant Criminal Appeal No, 261/2006, Amir Zaman and Muhammad Umer, appellants have called in question the order dated 1.4.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Dargai, whereby he forfeited one half of the bail bonds of the appellants.
2. Brief and relevant facts of the case are, that appellants stood sureties for accused Javed Khan and Sabz Ali. in case FIR No, 107 dated 24.7.2002, registered under Sections 212/216/216-A Cr.P.C., at Police Station Sakhakot, Malakand Agency. However, after having been released on bail, said accused Ja.ved Khan and Sabz Ali remained absent and the sureties were asked to produce the said accused. Since they failed to produce the accused in Court, therefore, they were given notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C. Ultimately, vide impugned order, they were dened to pay a sum of Rs, 25,000/- each.
The appellants were directed to deposit the confiscated amount with the learned trial Court within one month.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants 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 appellants stood surety for accused Javed Khan and Sabz Ali 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 appellants had any direct interest with the accused and that while imposing penalty, a balance should have been made between undue leniency and undue severity which was not made. Reliance was placed on Muhammad Shah and others vs. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J. 2316 Lahore), Amanullah and others vs. The State (1997 P Cr.L.J. 1927), Muhammad Khan vs. The State (1986 PCr.L.J. 2028) and Shatab Khan and another vs. The State (PLD 1996 Lahore 600).
4. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants, I find that for whatever reason the appellants had become sureties, they were under legal obligation to discharge their liability under the 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 stood sureties of the accused out of benevolence and without and 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. It was held in Muhammad Aslam and another vs. The State (2004 SCMR 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.
5. In the instant case, the learned trial Court has already taken a lenient view by forfeiting one half of the bail bonds i,e, Rs, 25.000/- each and I see no good ground 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 appellate jurisdiction. The Criminal Appeal fails, which is hereby dismissed in limine.