Saifal, petitioner, was arrested in a case under section 307/325, P.P.C. He was allowed interim pre- arrest bail in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang.
Muhammad Afzal Khan petitioner No.2, executed surety bond. Saifal failed to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at the time of the hearing of bail application on 19-7-1988. So, the bond was forfeited and after notice to the surety the trial Court imposed the penalty of Rs.10,000 upon the accused petitioner No.1 and Rs.5,000 on the surety/petitioner No.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on the same day after the rejection of his bail application and had explained the cause of his non-appearance. No one has appeared for the State.
2. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that Saifal, petitioner---accused did appear on the same day i.e. 19-7-1988 after the rejection of his bail application and had explained the cause of his non-appearance at the time when the case was called for hearing. This being the position there was no justification to impose the penalty upon the petitioner.
3. Pursuant to the above discussion, this revision is accepted and impugned order is set aside.