' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Through this petition, order, dated 4-1-2003 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, whereby full penalty of Rs,30,000 has been imposed against the petitioner, who had stood surety for Mst. Sonia accused in a case under sections 10, 13 and 14.
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Sonia was involved in case F.I.R. No,384 of 2005, dated 27-12- 2005, under sections 10/13 and 14 Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. She was granted bail in said case subject to furnishing of surety bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000. The petitioner stood her surety by way of submittingsurety bonds for the said amount in the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca.
3. During the pendency of the trial, the above said Mst. Sonia for whom the petitioner had stood surety, jumped the bail bonds on 6-6-2006. Therefore, the notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to the petitioner for 30-6-2006, but on the said date, the petitioner could not be served and the notices were repeated. After consumption of some dates, the petitioner appeared before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kehror Pacca, and submitted his reply on 14-12-2006. The said reply could not satisfy the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, who imposed full penalty of Rs,30,000 against the petitioner/surety, which has prompted the filing of the present petition.
4. In support of this petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had stood surety for the accused just out of benevolence and on the humanitarian grounds and he did not obtain any monetary benefit by standing her surety. He adds that he was not given proper opportunity to produce Mst. Sonia alias Sublee for whom he stood surety. However, he has candidly admitted that till date, said Mst. Sonia has not appeared before the trial Court and is absconding.
5. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I could not persuade myself to accept the contentions raised by him. After standing the surety of the accused, the petitioner was bound to ensure the presence of the said accused before the learned trial Court on each and every date, but the accused for whom, he stood surety A has jumped the bail bonds and as such, the petitioner has failed to fulfil his responsibilities. Though, the said accused disappeared from the trial Court on 6-6-2006, yet the petitioner has failed to procure her attendance before the trial Court up-till-now. A period of about 8 months has already clasped, but said accused is absconding till date. Keeping in view latest trend of frequent jumping of the bail bonds by the accused, the superior Courts have changed the previous practice of showing leniency to the sureties. In the latest judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the tendency of reducing the penalty of surety amount has been discouraged and the latest view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that because of unprecedented continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, the Courts should not show any undue leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount.
Their approach should be dynamic and progressive oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bonds. There is no legal requirement that full bail bond amount should not be forfeited, on the contrary, once an accused person jumps bail bond, the 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 case of Muhammad Safeerv. Faqir Khan (2000 SCM R 312) and Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State (PLD B 1997 SC 2E7). Consequently, this petition is found to be meritless and is dismissed in limine.
6. However, before parting with the order, the Court seized of the matter is directed to proceed against the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provision of section 514(2), Cr.P.C. Which authorizes the Court to attach and sell only movable property belonging to the surety and in case of failure to recover the surety amount, resort can be made to sub-clause (4) of said section.