KHADIM HUSSAIN M . SHAIKH, J. Through this criminal revision application, applicant Imran Ali Kalwar son of Ghulam Sarwar Kalwar, who stood surety for accused Ghulam Fareed, who was granted bail in Sessions Case No.68 of 2019, emanating from Crime No.118 of 2018, registered at Police Station A-Section, Shandadkot, for offences under Sections 324, 34, P.P.C., has called in question the order dated 26.07.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shandadkot at Kamber, whereby the applicant has been imposed penalty of entire surety amount of Rs.50,000/-.
2. The learned advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the applicant had stood surety for accused Ghulam Fareed during investigation and after the investigation challan was submitted behind the back of accused Ghulam Fareed and no notice was issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned to accused Ghulam Fareed, who was not aware about the challan submitted against him; on coming to know about it accused Ghulam Fareed had voluntarily surrendered himself before the concerned Court by obtaining pre-arrest bail and ultimately on 06.08.2019 accused Ghulam Fareed was acquitted on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, vide order, dated 06.08.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber- Shandadkot at Kamber; that the applicant has been imposed penalty of surety amount for no fault on the part of accused Ghulam Fareed, for whom the applicant had stood surety; and, that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and against the law, which may be set aside.
3. The learned Addl. P.G. endorsing the contentions of the learned Counsel for the applicant, has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge without providing fair opportunity to the applicant/surety to produce the accused has passed the impugned order; that accused Ghulam Fareed for whom the applicant had stood surety was not aware about the challan submitted in the Court, as is reflected from the case diaries filed as Annexure-D, available at pages 25 -- 28, of the learned Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate-II, Shandadkot: and, that accused Ghulam Fareed had voluntarily surrendered before the Court and has been subsequently acquitted on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.
4. I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the applicant and learned Addl. P.G., and have gone through the material brought on record.
5. From a perusal of the record, it would be seen that applicant Imran Ali. Kalwar, who had stood surety for accused Ghulam Fareed during the investigation, was not provided fair opportunity to produce A the accused before the Court; the certified copies of the case diaries filed I-1 as Annexure-D, available at pages 25 -- 28, reveal that the name of accused Ghulam Fareed, for whom the applicant had stood surety, is not mentioned in any of the case diaries and no process intimating the accused was issued to accused Ghulam Fareed, who admittedly without service of any notice, obviously on coming to know about the challan submitted against him, had surrendered himself before the concerned Court and was acquitted on 06.08.2019 on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shandadkot at Kamber is patently illegal, which is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 30.09.2019, whereby this criminal revision application was allowed and the impugned order dated 26.07.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamber-Shandadkot at Kamber was set aside.