Through this single judgment, I propose to dispose of two criminal revisions, i.e. Criminal Revision No.426 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No.427 of 1983.
2. Muhammad Sheraz Babar was arrested as an accused in a case under section 302 of the P.P.C.
He applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The application was entrusted to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who vide his order dated 9-5-1983 allowed interim bail to him subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.
Muhammad Shafi petitioner (Criminal Revision No.426 of 1983) and Nazir Ahmed petitioner (Criminal Revision No.427 of 1983) stood sureties and they executed surety bonds, which have been forfeited on account of non-appearance of accused, hence this Revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the petitioners had given undertaking to the effect that Muhammad Sheraz Babar accused will appear on 30-5-1983 and on his failure to do so, they will pay the penalty of Rs.50,00n each and the accused had appeared on that date but the hearing of the application was adjourned to 13-6-1983. On 13-6-1983, the accused did not appear before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, so the bail bonds were forfeited and they were directed to pay the entire amount of Rs.50,000 each. The learned counsel is of the view that since no undertaking was given by the petitioners for the production/appearance of the accused on the adjourned date and also no fresh bail bonds were required by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge for the appearance of the accused on 13-6-1983, therefore, the bail bonds furnished by the petitioners could not have been forfeited on account of the non-- appearance of the accused on 13-6-1983. The learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. I find that in the bail bonds, submitted by the petitioners, it has been stated that: From the bare reading of the bail bonds executed by the petitioners, it is very much obvious that the petitioners had given undertaking for the appearance of the accused on 30-5-1983 and not beyond that date. Since there was no undertaking given by the petitioners for the production/appearance of the accused on the adjourned date or on each date till the disposal of the application, therefore, the bail bonds could not have been forfeited. This being the position, there is no option but to accept these petitioners.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.