ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---This order shall dispose of captioned Criminal Revision Application filed by applicant Irfan Ali, whereby order dated 17.09.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur has been called in question as the applicant was penalized in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for standing surety of accused Ali Sher in case registered under Sections 324, 353, 147, 148, P.P.C. vide FIR No.103 of 2011 of Police Station Shahdadpur.
2. The facts in brief appear to be that applicant Irfan Ali stood surety for accused Ali Sher and executed such bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount before the learned Trial Court in terms of order dated 09.12.2011. However, after having released on bail, the said accused remained absent and the surety/applicant was asked to produce the said accused. Since the surety/applicant failed to produce the accused in Court, therefore, he was given notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C. Ultimately, vide impugned order he was penalized to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited within a period of one month failing which the same was ordered to be recovered as provided in section 514, Cr.P.C.
Learned Counsel for applicant maintained that impugned order is harsh and financial condition of the applicant has not been taken into consideration while imposing penalty; that applicant stood surety for accused Ali Sher out of benevolence without any monetary gain; that imposition of penalty was improper, unjust and unreasonable; that no inquiry was conducted to ascertain if the applicant had any direct interest with the accused; that the accused could not appear before the trial court on 21.05.2014, 09.08.2014 and in this regard the brother of surety Irfan Ali approached to the trial court informing the trial court that accused was ill and was admitted in a Hospital at Karachi. According to the learned Counsel, sufficient cause was furnished by the brother of surety before the trial court for non-attending of the accused in the trial court but the learned trial court did not consider this aspect of the case, and has erred in holding that it was the deliberate absence of accused from the court; that the surety does not know whether accused Ali Sher has been granted bail or otherwise, and that while imposing penalty, balance should have been made between undue leniency and undue severity which was not made; that impugned order has been passed without forfeiture of the surety bond, therefore, under the circumstances, learned Counsel for the applicant has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order by allowing this application and remanding the case to the Trial Court with direction to decide the application of the applicant after hearing him in accordance with law. In support of her arguments she has relied upon the case of Naseer Muhammad v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 860).
4. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh opposed the application and contended that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned order after hearing the surety. He further submits that sufficient opportunities were given to the surety/applicant to produce the accused before the Trial Court but he failed to do so.
5. Having heard the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties, I find that for whatever reason the applicant had become surety; he was under legal obligation to discharge his liability under the bail bond , furnished by him. After undertaking the liability himself, it does not lie in his mouth to say that on account of his financial condition he cannot pay the amount of bond executed by him and stood surety of the accused of his benevolence and without any monetary gain. There is no legal embargo that the amount of bail bond in full cannot be forfeited. In case where an accused jumps bail bond the entire surety amount becomes liable to confiscation. The surety is liable to produce the accused in Court in view of his undertaking at the time of furnishing surety on each and every date of hearing and in case he fails to produce the accused he would be liable to be penalized.
But, in this case as mentioned in the impugned order the surety has failed to produce the accused before the Trial Court, therefore, learned Trial Judge was justified in imposing the penalty after observing all legal formalities.
6. In the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 267) it was held as under:-- "Once an accused person jumps bail bond, entire surety amount become liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances. Courts in view of 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 unprecedent continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, should not show any leniency while for feiting bail bond amount. Approach of Courts should be dynamic and progressive-oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bond."
7. In another case reported as Ghulam Dastagir and 3 others v. The State (PLD 2011 Supreme Court 116), it has been observed as under:- "11. The present law and order situation prevailing in the Country and the deterioration of the moral values in the society in the past 3/4 decades requires that provisions of section 514, Cr.P.C. should not only be adhered to strictly but in case of non-appearance of the accused, a surety should be held liable for forfeiture of full amount of its bond for the reason that moral values of our society as were in the sixties are different today."
8. In the case in hand, learned Trial Court has passed impugned order on 17.09.2014 and since Then the surety has not deposited the amount of surety bond despite expiry of about four years. This aspect of the matter also shows mala fide on the part of the surety.
9. In view of the above, I see no good reason to reduce the amount of surety bond. The impugned order is correct, proper and legal and does not call any interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction.
10. This Criminal Revision Application fails, which is hereby dismissed along with listed application.
11. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur immediately, with direction to recover the surety amount from the surety after adopting all legal process.