1. ' The facts leading to the filing of this revision are that the petitioners were involved in a case registered under section 307/148/149, P.P.C., wherein they applied for bail before arrest. Ad interim bail was allowed to them by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, on 11-5-1986 till 19-5-1986. On the date fixed for the confirmation of the pre-arrest bail, the petitioners absented themselves; therefore, their bails were recalled for non-appearance, and a show-cause notice was also issued to them for the forfeiture of bail bonds. Later on vide order, dated 14-3-1987, the learned Court ordered the forfeiture of the entire amount of bail bonds' of Rs,10,0(X) each. The petitioners filed a revision against the said order, which was dealt with by this Court and the same was accepted and the case was remanded to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Plang with the directions to record the statements of the witnesses as well as of the sureties, as required under the law. After complying with the directions of this Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has given a finding that the petitioners had absented themselves by not appearing before the Court without any just cause, therefore, relying upon the dictum of the Supreme Court it directed the forfeiture of the bail bonds to the extent of Rs,2,000 each.
2. ' It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the absence of the petitioners was neither wilful nor intentional. Submits that it was a sheer misunderstanding for which they could not be penalized, because the police had assured them that they were going to delete the cognizable offences from the case registered against them, therefore, they instructed their counsel to withdraw the pre-arrest bail application.
2. I have heard the learned counsel and perused the file. Learned Court had examined the witnesses as well as the sureties. It also recorded the statement of the Advocate who, according to the assertion of the petitioners, was instructed. The learned trial Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioners did not appear before the Court without any just cause. From the perusal of the record, I fully agree with the findings arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The assertion of the petitioners before the said Court was that they were present within the Court premises, yet did not appear, because they had instructed their Advocate to withdraw the application, who could not do the same. The explanation afforded by the petitioners is neither convincing nor plausible.
3. ' I have gone through the order impugned, and find that cogent reasons have been given for forfeiting the bail bonds to the extent of Rs,2,000 each, to which no exception can be taken.
4. Resultantly, the petition fails which is dismissed.