' This criminal revision calls into question the order dated 31st January, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Sahiwal whereby the bail bond submitted by the petitioner was forfeited and warrants of attachment of immovable property owned by him was issued for the realization of the total amount of Rs, 5,000 as surety.
2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner stood surety for Muhammad Yar accused in a case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. Muhammad Yar failed to appear in the Court as he was reported to have gone abroad. His bail was cancelled and show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner who appeared before the Court and sought indulgence. The learned trial Court forfeited the bail bond and passed order for the realization of the amount mentioned in the bail bond. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that the petitioner was not entitled to any leniency because he had not furnished the present address of the absconding accused and had even failed to inform the Court of his having left the country.
Hence this revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to properly assess the extent to which the bond should have been forfeited. It is further argued that no efforts were made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to enquire into the relevant matters particularly the extent of the petitioner's responsibility.
4. It is generally assumed that the sureties do not gain anything by standing surety. They act through mere benevolence for standing a surety. It is well recognized in law that in dealing with cases of sureties who are in default, a balance has to be kept between undue leniency which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a 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. In assessing to what extent the bond should be forfeited, the Court would have regard to such matters as whether the surety has any direct interest through financial or blood connection with the accused, whether they have connived at or assisted in the absence of the accused and whether they have done their best to secure his attendance. I have myself made necessary A inquiries from the petitioner by posing several questions to him regarding his connection with Muhammad Yar absconding accused, circumstances under which he stood surety for him and his income. On the basis of this enquiry, I find that the petitioner had stood surety for Muhammad Yar through a common friend and he has not gained any benefit for standing surety for him. He does not appear to be in any way connected with his criminal activity or with his abscondence. Since Muhammad Yar has left the country, the efforts on the part of the petitioner to procure him could not be fruitful.
5. Taking all the circumstances into account, I find that the petitioner had indeed, forfeited the bond but I consider at the same time that the fun amount of the bond need not to have been required from him and that, in all the circumstances, his default will be adequately punished by requiring him to pay a sum of Rs, 1,000. I allow the revision to this extent. The bail bond will be forfeited to the extent of Rs, 1,000 only.
6. With the above modification the revision stands disposed of.