ORDER SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, J. By this single order I propose to dispose of three criminal revisions i.e. Criminal Revision ' No. 180 of 2010 filed by Chaudhary Wasib Hussain, Criminal Revision No. 181 of 2010 filed by Ansar Iqbal and Criminal Revision No.182 of 2010 filed by Ghulam Rasool as in all the three criminal revisions common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. Brief facts in order to dispose of all the three criminal revisions are that the petitioners Chaudhary Wasib Hussain, Ansar Iqbal and Ghulam Rasool stood sureties in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lac) for accused Mujasam Waqar, Shahid Kaleem and Mujasam Waqar respectively in case F.I.R. No. 319 dated 24-8-2007 registered under sections 302/ 324/34, P.P.C. At Police Station Saddar Jhelum by submitting bail bonds in the learned trial Court and the trial was at the last stage when all the three accused for whom the petitioners stood sureties absented themselves from the court; that all the three petitioners were issued show-cause notices under section 514, Cr.P.C. By the learned Addl. Sessions Judge/trial Court to explain as to why bail bonds be not forfeited and bail amount be confiscated to the State; that all the petitioners submitted their written reply of the show-cause notices mentioning the facts that they stood sureties for the accused only on humanitarian ground as the accused were closely related to them and they did not gain any monetary benefit in this respect; that they being poor persons had no other means of livelihood therefore, lenient view be taken against them while imposing penalty; that learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 24-6-2010 however, found no ground for taking lenient view and directed them to deposit whole of the surety amount i.e. Rs.5,00,000 as penalty in the Government Treasury within fifteen days of the passing of the said order otherwise it was directed that it be recovered in accordance with, law. Feeling aggrieved all the three petitioners have preferred above mentioned three separate criminal revision petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners no doubt stood sureties for all the three accused who absented themselves from the learned trial Court but while acting as sureties, all the three petitioners did not gain any monetary benefit rather they showed benevolence. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying on.2005 YLR 1602 'Gul Muhammad v.
The State' and 2002 PCr.LJ 2063 'Nazar Muhammad v. The State' prayed that lenient view in this respect be taken and penalty fixed by the learned trial Court be reduced at least to the extent of 1/3rd.
4. Learned D.P.-G. On the other hand, has opposed these revision petitions on the ground that the petitioners knowingly stood sureties for the accused and if the bail bonds are seen, they undertook the responsibility to produce the accused in the trial Court as and when directed and if they fail to do so, the petitioners/sureties would pay Rs.5,00,000 as penalty; that the petitioners although were allowed time to produce the accused yet they failed to do so; that due to the assistance of the petitioners, accused were released on bail and due to their absence, conclusion of trial was hampered. Prayed that these revision petitions being meritless be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Admittedly all the three petitioners vide their respective bail bonds in the sumof Rs.5,00,000 submitted before the learned trial court undertook to make arrangements for production of all the three accused for whom they stood sureties in the trial court till the final disposal of the case. They also undertook the responsibility that if the accused absented themselves, they would pay Rs.5,00,000 each as penalty in the court. Admittedly accused were involved in a murder case and they were facing trial which was at. The last stage and was likely to be concluded when the three accused absented from the court thus, caused A hindrance in the administration of justice. Had the petitioners not submitted bail bonds on behalf of the accused, they would have not been released and the trial might have been concluded. In reply to the show-cause notices issued by the learned trial court, all the three petitioners only submitted that they did not gain monetary benefit although they undertook to produce the accused and time was also allowed to them yet they failed to fulfil their commitment which they earlier submitted in the court in the shape of bail bonds. It is now settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment cited as 2009 SCM R 834 Saeed Akhtar v. The State' that forfeiture of whole of the surety amount mentioned in the bail bonds is a rule and if any leniency is demanded then it specifically be agitated and ground for that leniency are to be proved before the court. It has specifically been held that:-- "Court while forfeiting bail bond amount should not show any undue leniency and their approach should be dynamic and progressive- oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bonds---Once an accused jumps bail bond, entire surety amount becomes liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances."
Reference in this respect can be further seen in a judgment cited as PLD 1997 SC 267 'Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State'. In view of the circumstances no ground for showing any leniency as prayed for by the learned counsel for the petitioners is made out.
Resultantly there is no merit in these petitions which are hereby dismissed..