KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this criminal miscellaneous application applicant Amanullah has called in question order dated 13.11.2015, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi West, in Sessions Case No.319 of 2011, re-The State v. Javed and Jamshed, culminated from FIR No.419/2010 of Police Station Maripur, for offences under sections 396, 397, 34, P.P.C., whereby the applicant being surety of absconding accused Javed was imposed 50% of the surety amount of Rs150,000/- (rupees one lac fifty thousand) out of Rs.300,000/-( rupees three lac).
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that accused Javed and Jamshed were sent-up with the challan to face their trial in the aforesaid sessions case wherein they were granted bail in the sum of Rs.300,000/- (rupees three lacs) each by the learned trial court vide orders dated 13,10.2012 and 01.10.2011 respectively; the applicant Amanullah had stood surety for both the aforesaid accused. Of them, accused Javed, having jumped over the bail, had become absconder and was declared as Proclaimed Offender, resultantly his surety was forfeited by the learned trial court vide order dated 03.2.2015, and whereas accused Jamshed, having died pending trial the proceedings against him stood abated. As applicant Amanullah failed to produce the accused Javed in the court, the surety was forfeited, but on the application moved by the applicant Amanullah, the learned trial court reduced surety amount from Rs.300,000/- to Rs.150,000/-. The applicant being dis-satisfied with the said order, has filed the instant application.
3. Learned Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant despite his efforts could not be able to produce the accused Javed, before the court; and, that the surety amount, having been imposed on the applicant, is higher on side. He, therefore, prays that the amount of surety may be reduced. He has placed his reliance on the case of Muhammad Shah and another v.
The State (1995 PCr.LJ 1254) and case of Abdul Rashid v. The State (2007 PCr.LJ 673).
4. Learned APG has contended that accused Javed remained absconder for more than two years and after proper proceedings under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C., he was declared as Proclaimed Offender; and, that the applicant had been provided sufficient time to produce the accused, which, per him, was his bounden duty, but he failed to produce accused Javed in the court. He, therefore, prays that the application may be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned APG and have gone through the material available on record.
6. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that accused Javed was granted bail by the learned trial court subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.300,000/-; applicant Amanullah had stood surety for the said accused Javed, who jumped over the bail and remained absent from the court since 16.9.2014 onwards and on his continuously remaining absent from the court, his surety was forfeited; besides accused Javed, the applicant had also stood surety for co-accused Jamshed, who also absented himself from the court, but later-on, on furnishing the report about his having died, the proceedings against him were abated and surety for the said deceased accused Jamshed was returned to the applicant, but on failure to produce accused Javed, the learned trial court imposed 50% surety amount against the applicant.
7. In view of the above, I am of the view that the applicant/surety has failed to discharge his liability in producing the accused Javed in court despite sufficient latitude given to him; and, that the learned trial court had already taken lenient view by returning the surety of co-accused Jamshed and reducing the penalty of the surety amount from Rs.300,000/- to Rs.150,000/-, relating to the accused Javed, which in my humble view cannot be termed to be higher on side.
8. The case law relied upon by learned Advocate for the applicant being distinguished on facts and circumstances is not applicable to the case one in hand in as much as in case of Muhammad Shah supra, the matter involved interim bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge and in case of Abdul Rashid supra, the accused Ramzan absented himself only on one date on 29.11.2006 at the time of call, but he appeared on the same date later on and was sent to jail and then was released on bail, therefore, the penalty was reduced from Rs.100,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. In the case in hand the accused Javed, after jumping over the bail, absconded away and never returned and then was also declared as Proclaimed Offender, following the requisite proceedings.
9. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 13.11.2015, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge Karachi West, which does not call for any interference. The learned Advocate for the applicant has also not been able to point out any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the instant application being devoid of merit is dismissed.