' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Manzoor Ahmad Khan, stood surety for Haneef Masih who being an accused, sought ad interim bail before arrest in Case F.I.R. No,278 of 2008 dated 20-10-2008 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Ganda Singh Wala, District Kasur on 28-11-2008 through Criminal Miscellaneous No,11713-B of 2008, and submitted bail bonds in the sum of Rs,200,000 to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court on 4-12-2008.
2. The above said accused failed to enter appearance before this Court on 19-12-2008 without any just cause so the surety bonds submitted by Manzoor Ahmad Khan were forfeited and a show- cause notice in terms of section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to the surety, the same day, who has submitted a written reply with the contention that he, after having caught Haneef Masih accused, has handed him over to the police so, he (surety) leaves himself at the mercy of the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the respondent-surety is a poor man who has a smallholding in village Dohewala, Tehsil and District Kasur; he had stood surety for Haneef Masih accused out of benevolence, being a co-villager without any financial or other benefits; he has discharged his responsibility as a surety and after hectic efforts he located the runaway accused, persuaded him to appear before the police and succeeded in producing him before the police; the surety is a man of limited means who being a labourer/ cultivator hardly manages both ends meet in present tough conditions; Lastly contends that the surety may be dealt with graciously and he may be absolved of his liability altogether.
4. The learned Additional Prosecutor-General- submits that the respondent had voluntarily opted to be a surety for Haneef Masih and he submitted the bail bonds to the tune of Rs,200,000 knowingly that he was worth it and could meet its consequences in case the accused would desert; the written reply submitted by him does not match the contentions of his learned counsel; no circumstance has been hinted at by the surety to establish that he had. Made successful efforts to hand over the accused to the police; the surety may be dealt with dynamically and a penalty equivalent to the amount of the bail bonds may be inflicted upon him.
5. I have considered the matter carefully and have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both the sides. The respondent had opted to be a surety for Haneef Masih accused to the tune of Rs,200,000 merrily being a co-villager and submitted bail bonds for release of the accused with the promise that in case of desertion of the accused he shall be liable for payment .Of fine equivalent to the said amount. He could well conceive his financial worth before he decided to furnish said bail bonds. Once, he had submitted the surety bonds, he would be deemed to have assessed himself potent enough to face the consequences of the same.
6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-surety although are not akin to the contents of the written reply submitted by the surety yet, the fact that the surety is a man of limited means, owning a smallholding and economically crunched, had submitted the bail bonds out of benevolence, without any gain and for sympathetic considerations. So, he is entitled to be dealt with leniently.
7. The relevant law regarding remission of any portion of the penalty amount, as per section 514(5), Cr.P.C. Reads as under:-- "514(5). The Court may, at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only."
8. So far as the term leniency is concerned this Court has observed in case Sardar Khan v. Crown (PLD 1952 Lahore 645) as under:-- "The Court should regulate the imposition of penalty in cases of default from the point of view, not so much of assessing the 'guilt' of the sureties in terms of money, but with the object of maintaining the system in its integrity. In other words, if leniency towards, sureties became the general rule, the whole system of release of accused persons on bail might require to be re-examined to ensure the proper progress of criminal cases. At the same time, it is obviously not necessary or desirable in the average case, that the courts should lean in the direction of severity, for this might lead to difficulties in production of sureties, having the effect of overcrowding the judicial lock-ups and other attendant inconveniences".
9. A balance is required to be maintained between leniency, undue generosity and undue severity, lest it should prejudice none of the two sides and in this regard, the answer is hidden in the attending circumstances of each case.
10. In the case of Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47) the august Supreme Court has observed:-- ' a balance has to be held between undue leniency Which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference 'with the course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue severity, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward..............................
11. Law does not place any embargo that full amount of the bail bonds cannot be forfeited if the circumstances of the case so warranted. The portion of the amount, to be remitted or forfeited entirely rests on the attending circumstances of the each case and there cannot be any hard and fast rule in this regard. The respondent-surety has left himself at the mercy of the Court by lastly contending that he and his family have been placed in a quagmire wherein every member of his family shall disappear if he is ordered to deposit the full amount of the bail bonds.
12. In the light of the above circumstances, I am convinced that the petitioner is to be dealt with leniently in the interest of justice so, he is ordered to deposit Rs,75,000 (seventy five thousands) in the treasury within 30 days from today, failing which the said penalty amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue by the learned trial Court within the scope of Land Revenue Act. The instant suo motu case stands disposed of.