1. This order shall dispose of Crl. Re". No, 457/2004, titled 'Noor Muhammad vs. The State" and Crl. Rev.
2. No, 459/2004 titled 'Muhammad Ismail vs. The State", as common question of law and facts are involved in these petitions.
3. 2.Both the revision petitions relate to FIR No, 143/2004, under Sections 337-F(v)/337-A(i)/34 PPC, registered at Police Station Machiwal, District Vehari.
4. 3.The brief facts leading to the filing 0: the abovementioned petitions are that in the above FIR, Shafqat Kaleem and Qurban Ali, accused were allowed ad-interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari; the petitioner, Noor Muhammad, in Crl. Rev. No, 457/2004; stood surety for accused Shafqat Kaleem, while petitioner, Muhammad Ismail, in Crl. Rev. No, 459/2004, stood surety for accused Qurban Ali, for Rs, 25000/- each. It is alleged that on 12.7.2004, the above- named accused appeared in the Court on first call but subsequently did not turn up despite the fact that the Court waited till the closing hours, resultantly, their bail petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution and the bail bonds of the sureties were forfeited and show-cause notices under Section 514 Cr.P.C. were issued to the petitioners, which were duly replied. However, vide order dated 5.11.2004, the petitioners were directed to pay Rs, 10,000/- each as penalty. Aggrieved of the said order, the above said revision petitions have been filed and the same are being disposed of by this single order.
5. 4.It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was the duty of the 'petitioners to produce the accused at the time of arguments, which they did; they were not responsible if the petitioners disappeared after the arguments; that they were not professionals and did not get any monetary benefit by, filing the surety bonds, nor any proof has been given by the prosecution against the petitioners for having received any monetary gain; that the penalty imposed is very harsh and if at all penalty is to be imposed, then it should be reduced. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel referred to 1993 P.Cr.L.J. 1727, 1996 P.Cr.L.J. 1999, 2002 P.Cr.L.J. 2063, 2000 P.Cr.L.J.
6. 94, 1997 P.Cr.L.J. 1927 and 1996 1028.
7. 5.On the other hand, the learned State counsel vehemently supported the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and submitted that the surety was for Rs, 25000/- each while only penalty of Rs, 10,000/-each has been imposed on the petitioners. In this manner, it was argued that already a very lenient view has been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and prayed for the dismissal of the revision petition.
8. 6.The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the record has been perused. It is admitted that the surety of Rs, 25,000/- each was given by the petitioners and accordingly, the bail bonds were filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Vehari, on account of which Shafqat Kaleem and Qarban Ali, accused, were admitted to ad-interim pre-arrest bail in the above referred FIR. On 12.7.2004, the accused appeared in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge on first call but it appears that they must have realized that their pre-arrest bail was not being confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, therefore, they did not appear on the second call, with the result that their bail petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution. The submission of the petitioners that their responsibility was only till the bail petition was argued is not well founded. Till the disposal of the bail petition, it is the duty of the sureties to ensure that the accused appear in the Court when ever the case is called upon. It is to secure this attendance of the accused in the Court that the bail bonds from the sureties are obtained. It was the duty of the petitioners to ensure that the accused Shafqat Kaleem and. Qarban Ali were present in the Court even when the case was called again.
9. 7.The petitioners had executed bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 25,000/- each. The learned Additional Sessions Judge directed the petitioners to pay Rs, 10,000/- each instead of Rs, 25,000/-. Thus a lenient view was taken by him. Previously, the view of the superior Courts of Pakistan, as reflected by the different Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that in order to assess the extent of the forfeiture of bonds, a balance should be maintained between undue leniency on the one hand and undue severity on the other hand. In due course, however, due to the changed circumstances in our society, this view has been slightly changed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as reflected by subsequent judgments.
10. 8.In Muhammad Safeer vs. Faqir Khan and '2 others (2000 SCM R 312),'the bail bonds of Rs, 2,00,000/- each were executed by four sureties. The accused absconded and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by taking a lenient view forfeited an amount of Rs, 50,000/- from each bond. The sureties filed revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed and they approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. However, by a majority view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan ordered for forfeiture of the entire amount of bail bonds executed by the sureties. In Abbas Ali v. The State .(2004 SCM R 879), the accused absconded and bail bonds amounting to Rs, 50,000/- furnished by each surety were forfeited and penalty of Rs, 40,000/- was imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. This order was upheld both by the High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
11. 9.In the instant case, a lenient view had already been taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As the accused after the dismissal of their pre-arrest bail petitions appeared before the High Court and was allowed pre-arrest bail as his explanation was accepted, therefore, the penalty amount is not increased. In any event, no case has been made out for reducing the penalty of Rs, 10,000/- 10.In the light of what has been stated above, these revision' petitions are dismissed.