Muhammad Aslam and Ghazanfar Ali Petitioners No. 3 and 4 stood sureties for Adnan and Inayat All Petitioners No. 1 & 2 who vide order dated 6.7.2006 were granted pre-arrest interim bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Hafizabad in case F.I.R. No. 188/2006 dated 15.6.2006 under Sections 337- H(2)/342 PPC registered at Police Station Kassoke District Hafizabad and submitted surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each which were accepted on the same date. The accused/Petitioners No. 1 & 2 did not appear before the learned Sessions Court on the next date i.e. 11.7.2006, resultantly, the learned Court dismissed the bail petition for non-prosecution and also initiated proceedings by issuing notices under Section 514 Cr.P.C. to the-sureties as well as the accused persons, the petitioners herein, whereupon on the same day Petitioners No. 1 & 2 appeared before the Court and filed second bail petition wherein they were again granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail. In reply to notice Muhammad Aslam. Ghazanfar Ali Petitioners No. 3 and 4/sureties explained that accused/Petitioners No. 1 and 2 could not appear in Court on 11.7.2006 due to breakdown of the rickshaw and that they were granted pre-arrest bail on 11.7.2006 which was also later on confirmed as a result of compromise having been effected between the parties. Being not satisfied with the said reply, the learned Sessions Judge, vide order 15.8.2006 forfeited the surety bonds submitted by Petitioners No. 3 and 4 to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- only by taking lenient view. The learned Addl.
Sessions Judge through the same order also burdened Adnan, Inayat Ali Petitioner No. 1 and 2 with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each holding that they were more responsible than their sureties. All the petitioners were directed to deposit the penalty imposed by the Court in the Government Treasury within 20 days. Hence this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners at the very outset has prayed for reduction in the penalty imposed upon the petitioners on the grounds that Petitioners No. 3 and 4 had submitted surety bonds on humanitarian grounds who had not gained any monetary benefit from the accused persons i.e. Petitioners No. 1 & 2 and this was an act of benevolence on the part of Petitioners No. 3 & 4; that the absence of Petitioners No. 1 and 2 was not wilful but due to unavoidable circumstances mentioned above; that on the date of hearing i.e. 11.7.2006 when they reached the Court, the order regarding initiation of proceedings under Section 514 Cr.P.C. had been passed and that they again applied for pre-arrest bail on the same day which was granted and was subsequently confirmed on account of a compromise effected between the parties. Lastly, contended that the petitioners are very poor persons, hence, a lenient view should be taken in the matter.
3. The learned State counsel has no objection to the reduction of the penalty imposed by, the learned Sessions Judge.
4. Admittedly, Petitioners No. 1 and 2 for whom the Petitioners No. 3 and 4 stood surety could not appear before the Court of learned Sessions Judge on 11.7.2007, i.e. the date fixed for confirmation of bail resulting in dismissal of their bail petition for non-prosecution as well as issuance of notices under Section 514 Cr.P.C. to the sureties who could not procure the attendance of the accused at the said point of time. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, fully justified to impose the penalty upon the petitioners. However, the Petitioners No. 3 and 4 stood surety only on humanitarian ground and not for any monetary benefit and even otherwise no connivance about non-appearance of the accused has been alleged against them. The accused persons on that very date appeared before the learned Court with another application for bail and were granted pre-arrest bail which was later on confirmed on account of a compromise having been effected between the parties. Further, since the petitioners are poor persons, as such a balance has to be kept between undue leniency and undue severity. In view of the above, the amount of the penalty imposed on the petitioners by the learned Court appears to be harsh.
5. For what has been discussed above, the impugned order dated 15.8.2006 to the extent of forfeiture of surety bond is maintained. However, the amount of penalty imposed upon the accused persons and sureties is reduced from Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively to Rs.
5,000/- each. They are directed to deposit the same in the Government treasury within 30 days from the date of this order. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.