The facts leading to this criminal revision, briefly, are that a case under section 302/148/149, P.P.C.
Was registered against Allah Yar and four others, at Police Station City, Vehari. Allah Yar accused was allowed bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.30,000 with two sureties in the like amount, Falak Sher petitioner executed bond. After his release on bail Allah Yar did not appear before the trial Court. The case was adjourned for about 10 months for his appearance. Warrants for his arrest were issued but all in vain. The petitioner was given opportunities to produce Allah Yar accused but he failed to produce him. So, the bond stood forfeited. The trial Court recorded the ground of such proof and called upon the petitioner/surety to show cause why the amount of bond should not be paid by him. Expressing his inability to produce the accused, the petitioner prayed for leniency on the ground that he had made best efforts to trace out the accused. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 4-6-1990 directed him to deposit Rs.25,000 as penalty. Hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had executed surety bond not for monetary benefits but for humanitarian ground; that t he had made his best efforts to trace out the accused and to produce him before the Court; that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the question of forfeiture of the bond; and that in any case the penalty imposed on the petitioner was/is harsh.
3. Keeping the balance between undue leniency and undue severity in the matter of forfeiture of bond and recovery of the amount, I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner carefully. I find that Allah Yar was involved in a murder case. He was released from the jail on the basis of bond executed by the petitioner whereby he undertook to produce him before the Court concerned on each date of hearing and on his failure to appear before the Court, he promised to pay Rs.30,000 as penalty. After his release the accused absented and did not appear before the Court for about ten months. As such, failure on the part of the accused to appear before the Court was wilful and the condition of the bond having been broken, the bond stood forfeited. Except for the bald statement made by the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that he as a matter of fact, had executed surety bond through mere benevolence or that he had been making sincere efforts to secure the attendance of the accused. When asked by this Court as to whether or not the petitioner was prepared to produce the accused at this stage, the learned counsel replied in the negative. On my independent assessment I feel that no sufficient cause has been shown as to why the petitioner should not pay the entire amount of the bond i.e. Rs.30,000?
4. Of late I have been noting the alarming tendency on the part of the accused persons to abscond after their release on bail. Large number of cases of heinous nature like smuggling, drugs and murders are lying undecided in the Courts due to the absconsion of the accused after their release on bail. The leniency shown to the sureties has rot borne fruit, it has rather led to the abuse of the procedure and interference with the Courts of justice in a large number of cases. The indulgence shown by the superior Courts in the matter of the recovery, of the amount of the bond has been misused. It is no secret that in case of determined absconsion after the grant of bail in serious cases, arrangements are made by the accused with the sureties for the indemnity of the latter as and if they (sureties) are called to pay the bond money. In some cases, the amount of bonds is physically paid to the sureties before they execute the bonds. So, undue leniency as no more desirable.
5. Each case has, however, to be deckled on its own facts. In the instant case, the accused of a murder case was released on the basis of the surety bond executed by the petitioner. The trial Court waited for the appearance of the accused for to months, yet he did not appear. The surety has declined to produce him even at this stage and the accused still remains absconder. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from undue severity. So, no exception can be taken to it.
6. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision application is dismissed in limine. The trial Court shall proceed to recover the penalty amount in accordance with law.
N.H.Q./F-226/L