This revision petition is directed against the order dated 4-4-1983 of the 'District Magistrate, Okara; who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 16-1-1983, passed by the learned Magistrate, forfeiting the whole surety amount of Rs.10,000.
2. The petitioner stood surety for one Sabir Ali accused. He absented himself from the Court and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner did not appear before the Court in spite of service. The learned Magistrate, therefore; by order dated 16-1- 1983, forfeited the whole surety amount. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, which was dismissed on 4-4-1983.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner never stood surety for the accused and the learned Magistrate without following the formalities laid down under section 514, Cr.P.C. Passed the order dated 16-1-1983, which is a nullity in the eye of law.
PLD 1963 SC 47:-- "At the same time, the release of accused persons on bail assists in the administration of justice by preventing overcrowding in the available spaces of imprisonment. Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who are in default, a balance has to be held between undue leniency which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue severity, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. Finally, in assessing to what extent the bond should be forfeited, the Court would have regard to such matters as whether the sureties have any direct interest through financial or blood connection with the accused, whether they have connived at or procured the absence of the accused, and whether they have done their best to secure his attendance."
4. Learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned orders on the ground, which prevailed with the lower Courts.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, I have pondered over the matter and I find there is no substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on factual plane, as both the Courts below have rightly concluded that the petitioner stood surety for the accused, who absented from the Court. There is no misreading of evidence hence the finding of fact is maintained. However, in view of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the petitioner stood surety on humanitarian grounds, I reduce the amount from Rs.10,000 to Rs.2,500. The petitioner is directed to deposit the amount in the trial Court within one month. With these observations, this petition is disposed of.
SA./T-124/L. Surety amount reduced.