1. The applicant stood surety for accused Umer who was challaned alongwith Kamiso under section 307/34, P. P. L. And. Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, and executed surety bond in the sum of Rs.
2. 10,000. On his failure to produce the accused inspite of several opportunities given to him, the learned Sessions Judge, Jacobabad forfeited the bond and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6,000 taking a lenient view of the matter.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the point which are required to be considered for imposing penalty have not been considered and followed in this case. Reference is made to Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47) 1 had also the opportunity to refer to these points in Criminal Revision Application No. 0 of 19SU Allahbad v. The State I may quote from there "Here I may state the points that require consideration in this regard as pointed out by the Supreme Court and High Courts. These are :-
(1) Whether- the surety has any direct interest through financial. Or blood connection with the accused ?
(2) Whether he has connived at or procured the absence of the accused ?
(3) Whether he has done his best to secure the attendance of the accused ?
4. Reference may be made to Dildar and another v. The State and Banaras v. The State (1975 P Cr. L J 954).
5. I may also here quote the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Dildar and another v. The State (Supra) that should not be lost sight of it is.
6. Therefore in dealing with cases of sureties who are in default, 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 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 and give bail for persons under accusation.--- Mr. S. Sarfraz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General submits that it is recorded in the order that the applicant had failed to submit any explana--tion whatsoever. In reply it is submitted by Mr. M.
7. Daud A. Baloch that the applicant had applied for adjournment on several dates but on the last date adjournment was refused without calling upon the applicant or enquiring from him necessary information for determining amount of penalty to be imposed.
8. It is clear from the order that the learned Sessions Judge did not consider at least two of the above mentioned points as there is no discus--sion about the same; In the circumstances 1 set aside the order and remand the case for consideration of the relevant points and passing fresh order according to law. I also direct that the matter may be disposed of within two months of the receipt of the R & F.