1. Izzat Ali petitioner stood surety for one Muhammad Aslam who was granted bail by the learned Special Judge Central, Faisalabad in case F.I.R. No, 72/2003 dated. 10.9.2003 for offence under Sections 17/22 of the Immigration Ordinance registered at Police Station FIA Faislabad. After submission of challan, the learned trial Judge summoned the said Muhammad Aalam accused who had left the country without permission of the trial Court and did not appear before it to face trial as a result of which his bail was cancelled and notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C. was issued to the petitioner/surety and his reply being not satisfactory, the learned trial Court while taking a lenient view vide order dated 26.7.2006 forfeited 50 percent amount of the bail bond submitted by the petitioner. He was directed to deposit an amount of Rs, 50,000/- within one month in the Government treasury. Hence this revision petition.
2. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset prayed for reduction in the penalty imposed upon the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not gained any monetary benefit from the accused and being a friend of Muhammad Aslam accused, this was an act of benevolence on the part of the petitioner who is a poor person and a lenient view should be taken in the matter.
3. 3.The learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. 4.Admittedly the accused person for whom the petitioner stood surety did not appear before the trial Court at the time when the case was fixed for hearing and further, the petitioner also failed to produce him before the learned Court. The learned trial Court was, therefore, fully justified to impose penalty upon the petitioner. However, as the petitioner stood surety only on humanitarian ground and not for any monetary benefit and even otherwise no connivance about disappearance of the accused had been alleged against him coupled with the fact that he is a poor person, a balance has to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity, taking into consideration the financial status of the petitioner. The petitioner is a poor person who seems to be trapped in this situation.
5. 5.For what has been discussed above, the impugned order dated 26.7.2006 to the extent of forfeiture of surety bond is maintained. However, the amount of penalty is reduced from Rs, 50,000/- to Rs, 25,000/-. The petitioner is directed to deposit the same in the Government treasury within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the entire amount of Rs, 50,000/- shall be recovered from him. This petition is disposed of.