' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, 1.---Order dated 23-1-2007 passed in this Criminal Revision would be deemed as part of the instant order.
2. In pursuance of the said order i,e, 23-1-2007, a separate file was opened by the office and the notice was issued to Rehmat Masih. The said notice has been received back with the information that the said Rehmat Masih had died on 27-10-2005. In view of the said report, said notice has been withdrawn.
3. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the submissions made by him on 23-1-2007.
4. Learned Deputy. Prosecutor. General has opposed this revision petition.
5. After hearing the arguments of both the learned counsel and going through the record, it has been observed that one Mst. Shama who was involved in case F.I.R No,273/03 under sections 10(2)/13/14 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, registered with police station Kehror Pacca, District Lodhran, was granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds m the sum of Rs,1,00,000. The petitioner stood surety of the said accused by executing and furnishing bail bonds which were accepted by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, on 18-10-2003. After submissions of the challan against the said accused, she failed to appear before the learned trial court on 22-5-2004 and consequently bail bonds were forfeited and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to her surety i,e, the petitioner. He was served after resorting to coercive measures in the shape of issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants. Said process consumed the period of about two ad half years. Ultimately, after being served with the notice, the petitioner submitted the reply to notice under section 514, Cr.P.0 in which he denied the execution of surety bonds by him. He claimed that copy of record of rights pertaining to his property was obtained by his son and on the basis of the said copy and copy of the identity card of the petitioner, Mst. Shama accused submitted forged surety bonds and got herself released. He further claimed in the said reply that he had tried his level best to trace Mst. Shama but failed to do so. The said reply could not satisfy the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca and he imposed full penalty of Rs,1,00,000 against the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the same plea before me that surety bonds were not in fact executed by the petitioner. He has further submitted that no one had testified said surety bonds as witness.
7. I have attended the said plea vigilantly. The perusal of the same reveals that the surety bonds submitted and executed by the petitioner were duly thumb marked by him. The same contains signatures of the person who had identified the petitioner at the relevant time.
8. Surety bonds are always accepted by the concerned court after satisfying the identify of the surety and witnesses. The presumption of correctness and regularity is attached to the judicial proceedings. After executing the bail bonds, the petitioner cannot be allowed to have volte-face by simply denying very execution of the same. Such practice on the part of the sureties cannot be allowed. In the backdrop of said circumstances, as I am fully convinced that the petitioner had duly submitted an executed surety bonds, therefore, his plea submitted before the learned Addl.
Sessions Judge as well as submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this court are spurned.
8-A. As the accused for whom the petitioner stood surety has jumped the bail bonds and despite the expiry of period of about three years, she has failed to appear to face the trial during the pendency of which she had been granted the bail and she is still a fugitive from law, this petition does not merit acceptance. Lately, Hon'ble Supreme Court has discouraged the tendency of reducing the penalty of surety bonds and the latest view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that because of the unprecedented continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in loss of money value, the courts should not show any undue leniency while forfeiting the bail bonds and imposing the penalty against the surety and it has been further laid down that the approach of the court should be dynamic and progression oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump the bail bonds. It has been further laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no legal requirement that full bail bonds should not be forfeited, on the contrary, once an accused person jumps the bail bonds, entire surety amount becomes liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. If any case law is required, reference is made to the cases of Muhammad Safeer v. Faqir Khan (2000 SCM R 312) and Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 267). In the present case, no mitigating circumstances have been found in favour of the petitioner.
The conduct of the petitioner, whereby, he had opted to straightway deny the execution of the bail bonds instead of accepting his liability, he is not entitled to any relief.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner lacks sufficient resources to pay the penalty imposed against him. To appreciate this contention, I have gone through the bail bonds submitted by him, which shows that at the relevant time, he had shown himself to be the owner of the property valuing Rs,1,56,000 apart from other moveable property valuing Rs,25,000. Therefore, even this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold water. After execution bail bonds, the sureties cannot be allowed to turn around to adopt such plea.
10. The nutshell of all the above discussion is that this petition is found to be meritless and consequently the same is dismissed. .