The petitioner had stood surety for one Ghulam Mustafa, who had been arrested in a case registered against him at Police Station Garh, Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad, under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. Ghulam Mustafa had absented after release on bail, on the basis of surety bond submitted by the petitioner.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was seized of the case, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why the amount of bail bond be not confiscated. Petitioner appeared before the Court on 6-4-1987 and requested for adjournment. The proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Were adjourned, as prayed, to 4-5-1987. He did not appear before the Court on that date, nor anybody else appeared for him. The learned trial Judge cancelled the bail bond and forfeited the total amount of Rs.10,000.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not been given an opportunity to show cause, why bail bond amount be not confiscated, stands negated by the order dated 6-4-1987, wherein he had appeared in response to the notice and had asked for time, which was granted, but had not turned on that date.
4. The contention that the petitioner should have been granted an opportunity to produce the accused also does not advance the case of the petitioner, as even upto this time, the accused has not been produced before the trial Court. If the petitioner had intention or means to produce the accused, he could have done so by this time and this factor could have been a source of mitigation.
5. The last contention that the petitioner did not appear on 4-5-1987, as according to the petitioner, a chit was given to him by the Reader of the Court for appearance on 6-6-1987, does not find support from the record. No such chit has been produced. The appearance of the petitioner on 6- 6-1987 seems to be in pursuance of the warrants of attachment. The petition thus fails on merits.
6. However, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for reduction of the confiscated amount requires consideration.
It appears that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the first absence of the accused. The confiscation of total amount of bail bond seems to be harsh in the circumstances of this case. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dildar, etc. v. State PLD 1963 SC 47, the confiscated amount of Rs.10,000 is reduced to that of Rs.3,000.
The petition stands disposed of.