SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J. Through the instant Criminal Revision Petition, the Petitioner (Muhammad Mudas sar) has assailed Order dated 30.03.2021 ("Impugned Order ") passed by learned Judge, Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, whereby penalty of Rs.300,000/- has been imposed upon the Petitioner being surety in FIR No. 137/2018 dated 28.09.2018, P.S. ANF/RD North, Rawalpindi, registered for the offence under Section 9-C and 15, CNSA,1997.
2. Necessary facts, as per the contents of the Memo of Petition, are that the Petitioner is surety of Accused, Katty Claudine Buntas in the aforesaid FIR. The bail after arrest of the Accused was dismissed by Respondent No. 1 vide Order dated 27.02.2019 and later on Accused was released on bail vide Order dated 27.03.2019 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 180-B/2019, against surety amount of Rs. 500,000/-. The Petitioner deposited the surety amount of the Accused in the shape of bail bond before Respondent No. 1. Statedly, Petitioner was not personally known to the Accused and submitted surety bond on humanitarian grounds. During the trial proceedings the Accused did not appear before the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court started proceedings against the Petitioner. Petitioner requested the learned Trial Court that he is unable to present the Accused before the Court and the learned Trial Court imposed penalty of Rs. 500,000/-. The Petitioner requested for reduction of penalty which was accepted vide Order dated 30.03.2021 and penalty amount was reduced to Rs.300,000/- and the Petitioner was directed to deposit the same on or before 14.04.2021. Hence, present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, inter alia, contended that the Petitioner is financially weak and unable to submit the penalty/surety amount; that the Impugned Order is against the law, facts of the case, and natural justice; and requested to set aside the Impugned Order.
4. On the other hand, the official of the ANF supported the Impugned Order as being just and legal and prayed for dismissal of instant Petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It is an admitted fact that the Accused was granted bail by this Court subject to furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety and that the Petitioner stood surety for the said Accused, who has now jumped bail and is not appearing before the learned Trial Court.
7. Perusal of Impugned Order reveals that learned Special Court CNS, Islamabad has granted multiple opportunities to the surety to produce the accused before the Court but he has failed in discharging his liability to produce him before the Court. The Impugned Order further reflects that Petitioner/surety put in appearance subsequent to issuance of non-bailable warrants and furthermore that he was issued notice to show cause as to why surety amount may not be recovered from him pursuant to which the order of forfeiture of surety was passed.
Thus all the necessary steps prescribed for forfeiture of bail bond as per settled law and recently summarized by the Honorable Sindh High Court in the case of Sabir Shah Vs. The IIND Additional District and Sessions Judge East Karachi, 2020 YLR 2347 have been complied with prior to passing the Impugned Order .
8. It has already been held in a number of cases by the Honorable Supreme Court including Muhammad Aslam Vs. The State, 2004 SCMR 211, Saeed Akhtar Vs. The State, 2009 SCMR 834 that no lenient view should be taken in matters of sureties as it encourages people to abscond. At the same time, the Honorable Supreme Court rightly pointed out in the case of Zeeshan Kazmi Vs. The State, PLD 1997 SC 267 that a balance has to be held between undue leniency which may lead to abuse and undue severity which may lead to unwillingness on the part of the neighbors and friends to come forward and give bail bond for accused persons.
9. Keeping all the said principles in mind, this Court is of the view that the Impugned Order passed by the learned Special Court is well within the four corners of the law in terms of Section 514 Cr.P.C., though, the learned Court has taken a lenient view by reducing the penalty of the surety from Rs. 500,000/- to Rs.300,000/-.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we find no illegality in the Impugned Order which does not warrant any interference by this Court. Resultantly , instant Criminal Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.