1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.---By this revision application under sections 435 and 439, Cr.P.C. The applicant has challenged the order, dated 11-3-2008 passed by learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, Malir in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2007. The State v. Naimatullah whereby the surety produced by the present applicant has been forfeited.
2. ' The facts leading rise to the present revision application in brief are the applicant stood surety for Naimatullah son of Bismillah in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2007 in Crime No. 838 of 2006 under sections 419/420/468/471/109, P.P.C. At Police Station F.I.A. Passport Cell, Karachi, who was granted bail in the sum of Rs.200,000. After challan of the said accused Naimatullah, he jumped out the bail and remained absent from the proceedings of the case as such notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was served on the applicant, who stood surety for accused Naimtullah. The applicant after service of the notice, failed to produce the accused in Court as such the learned trial Court forfeited the surety bond and directed him to deposit the fine amount of Rs.200,000 within 30 days from the date of passing the said order. The applicant/ surety being aggrieved with the said order, has preferred the present revision application.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Abdul Jabbar Korai, Advocate for the applicant. He vehemently contended that the accused could not be produced in spite of best efforts of the applicant before the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court was not justified in forfeiting the bail bond of the applicant and the learned trial Court ought to have reduce the quantum of the fine as such learned trial Court has committed illegality in passing the order impugned herein. In support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Rafique v. The State reported in 2001 PCr.LJ 1599, Gul Muhammad v. The State reported in 2005 YLR 1602, and the case of Sher Ali and another v. The State reported in 2000 PCr.LJ 94.
4. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant/surety and have gone through the relevant law on the subject.
5. The applicant stood surety for accused Naimatullah in the sum of Rs.200,000 and the memo of surety produced by the applicant was accepted by the learned lower Court and after execution of bond, the custody of the accused was in fact handed over to him with direction to him to produce the accused on each and every date of hearing in Court, as such, it was the bounden duty and responsibility of the surety to cause attendance of the accused in Court on each and every date of hearing and failure of the accused to attend the Court is responsibility of the surety, and, in case, if in spite of notice served on him by the Court, he failed to produce the accused in Court, the Court is within its right and power to forfeit surety bond under section 514, Cr.P.C. And can impose the fine thereby directing the surety to deposit the full quantum of the surety bond. It is apparent that the accused has frequently jumped out the bail with intention that reduced quantum of the surety bond will be deposited, which tantamount to his acquittal from the main case and the same question came for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so many cases. In the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State reported in PLD 1997 SC 267, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking note of the present circumstances was pleased to observe that full quantum of the surety must be forfeited. The dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zeeshan Kazmi is usefully quoted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-- "Keeping in view the above bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the 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. In the case of Jamroze Khan v. The State (1990 SCM R 1313), the Additional Sessions Judge concerned forfeited the full amount of surety bond amount, namely, Rs.50,000 in a murder case. The High Court as well as this Court declined to interfere with the above order. In the other cases, referred to hereinabove, the High Courts had reduced the forfeited amount, but this Court declined to interfere with the same.
6. ' In the case of Saffar Khan v. The State reported in 1997 SCM R 1983, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe, as under:-- "We are inclined to approve the observations of the learned Chief Justice in this case that the attitude of the accused on account of leniency exhibited by the Court in imposition of penalty on the sureties is encouraging the accused to misuse the concession of bail by their abscondence. It is disquieting to note that the courts seized of the matters in awarding the penalty on the forfeiture of bail bonds are not exercising the discretion equitably and justly. They are discharging this responsibility, to say the least, without much care and caution often leading to misuse of the concession of bail by the accused by their abscondence and in most of the cases repeating, during that period, the commission of the same offence with impunity. It is with dismay to observe also that the Law Officers representing the interest of the State are also making undue concession without any hesitation thereby strengthening the said trend of reducing the amount of penalty with shocking leniency."
7. ' In the case of Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and others reported in PLD 1998 SC 50, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to observe as under:-- "The plea that no monetary gain was involved and they offered security/surety on humanitarian grounds, cannot be accepted as Court was not taken into confidence as regards the essential factual position e.g., cause or reason for furnishing surety on account of long time acquaintance or other relationship, if any, existing between the respondents herein and the accused. The factual foundation of the plea was, thus, not established."'
8. ' In the case of Muhammad Safeer v. Faqir Khan and others reported in 2000 SCM R 312, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also pleased to observe as under:-- "The forfeiture should have been to the extent of the full amount of the bond. When confronted with the aforesaid judgments, the learned counsel confined his arguments to the effect that the petitioner has already suffered simple imprisonment for two months and therefore, a lenient view should be taken. Be that as it may, we are bond by the judgments delivered by this Court referred to hereinbefore."
9. The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, clearly indicate that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a judicial notice of the facts that usually the accused used to jump out the bail and the surety on one or the other reasons used to get the amount of bond reduced and, in case, if the accused jumps out the bail, the surety is not entitled for any leniency and full amount of surety bond must be forfeited by the Court, without showing any leniency to the surety. The dictums laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-discussed cases are fully applicable to the circumstances of the present case.
10. ' For all the aforesaid reasons and circumstances, I find that the case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/surety are not applicable, in view of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. The revision application has, therefore, no merit and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.