' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against a judgment dated 20-3- 2007 of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, partially allowing Criminal Appeal, preferred by Saeed Akhtar petitioner.
2. Facts of the case shortly narrated are, that Saeed Akhtar, petitioner, stood co-surety along with Raziq Shah for the release of accused Akbar Khan charged in case F.I.R. No,691 dated 15-9-2005 recorded at Police Station City Haripur, for offences under sections 324/ 353/411/201/109/34, P.P.C.
After release on bail accused Akbar Khan disappeared and consequently proceedings under section 512, Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the accused and under section 514, Cr.P.C. Against the petitioner and another surety Raziq Shah as well on 9-1-2007 and 31-1-2007, respectively. Notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was also served upon the petitioner, which 'was accordingly replied. After hearing the arguments, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur vide his judgment dated 23-2- 2007 burdened the petitioner to pay Rs,50,000 as penalty for the forfeited bail money and in default of its payment to undergo 5 months' S.I.
3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, approached the Peshawar High Court by filing Criminal Appeal No,20 of 2007, which was dismissed as stated and mentioned above.
4. Mr. Muhammad Asif, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, attempted to argue that the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. Have not been duly and lawfully complied with; that learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the record of the case; that petitioner stood surety in good faith on humanitarian grounds and not for any monetary gains and that the judgment of learned High Court as well as of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Haripur suffer from the vice of misreading and non-reading of record and cannot be allowed to remain intact.
5. Mr. Ishtiaq Ibrahim, Additional Advocate-General N.-W.F.P, representing the State, controverted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and supported the impugned judgment on all counts.
6. Learned High Court in the impugned judgment has discussed all aspects of the matter in detail, leaving no room for further consideration. Neither any misreading nor non-reading of the record could be pointed out in the impugned judgment, justifying interference by this Court. Para 5 of the impugned judgment is reproduced herein below for facility sake:--- "5. Firstly taking the case of appellant Saeed Akhtar, it is observed that in response to the notice of proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. The appellant had categorically stated that he was not related to accused Akbar Khan nor he had obtained any monetary benefit from the said accused.
On the other hand the record is depictive of the fact that accused Akbar Khan was a permanent resident of Nawangai, District Buner and was temporarily residing at Pir Anda Baffa, District Mansehra. It can, therefore, be conveniently gathered that in absence of any relationship between Saeed Akhtar and the absconding accused the act of the former entering as surety for the latter, was not without consideration. It is further noticed that while applying the provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. The learned Court had already taken a lenient view by burdening the appellant with a penalty of Rs,50,000 while the surety bond entered into by the appellant and subsequently forfeited, was for a sum of Rs,1,00,000. In the said regard reliance can be safely placed on judgment reported as 2004 SCM R 211. Further, the appellant could not lay forth any circumstance preventing the accused from appearing before the Court. This fact also weakened his case for extension of more leniencies by this Court."
7. It has been held by this Court on various occasions that no lenient view should be taken and entire amount of the bail bond should be recovered as an amount of penalty. In this regard reference may be made to Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267, it was observed:-- "It has now become common that the accused persons involved in heinous offences, if succeed, in obtaining bail, jump the bail bonds. To check the above tendency and to provide deterrent special provisions have been enacted and/or are being enacted in the special statutes prescribing the minimum amount of bail bond.... 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 "
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and .