1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Jamroz Khan petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 13-6-1989, whereby his criminal revision against the forfeiture of his surety bond by the Additional Sessions Judge, was dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts of this petition are that one Mushtaq Ahmad was accused in an offence under section 302 P.P.C. And was granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, in a sum of Rs, 50,000 with one surety in the like amount and Jamroz Khan petitioner stood surety on his behalf. He furnished surety bonds of the said amount on 21-12-1980. Mushtaq Ahmad who is alleged to be the principal accused in the said murder case, disappeared w,e,f. 18-1-1989 and so far has not surrendered to the Court. Hence notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to the petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge that why his surety be not forfeited and he was ordered to deposit the surety amount of Rs,50,000 within fourteen days, vide order dated 17-4-1989. This order was challenged in a revision petition before the High Court and a learned Single Judge vide his order dated 13-6-1989, dismissed the revision petition. Hence, this petition before us for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned judgment. The learned counsel states that the petitioner stood surety for Mushtaq Ahmad who was his neighbour and thus it was for no gain and the disappearance of Mushtaq accused was not with the connivance of the petitioner.
4. After the hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that Mushtaq Ahmad is admittedly charged for the offence of murder and it was the duty of the surety to have procured the attendance of Mushtaq accused and thus no ground appears for us to show any leniency in the reduction of the forfeiture of bail bond of the full amount, furnished by the petitioner. Thus, finding no force in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.