1. This application under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code has 1992 Bano v. State (Imam Ali G. Ka7i, J) be en filed by one Buno son of Mohammad Sadique Mangbrio impugning the order passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur on 14-1-1992 whereby he ordered forfeiture of his surety bond which he has executed in the sum of Rs.50,000 for accused Khushhal son of Mohammad Bakhsh Sahto in Sessions Case No.83/89. It appears that accused Khushhal Sahto had slipped out of the country during the pendency of his trial without permission of the Court to Saudi Arabia and remained absent for about over 18 months. The trial Judge had issued non-bailable warrants for his arrest and granted sufficient time of over 18 months to the applicant to produce him. Since he was unable to produce the accused he passed the order impugned in this application.
2. Mr. Nooruddin Sarki, Advocate appearing for the applicant has referred to the application filed by accused Khushhal on 29-1-1992 filed by him on his surrender before that Court. The trial Judge on that date remanded him to custody and according to Mr.Nooruddin Sarki, Advocate for the applicant, he continues to be in custody in that case. In fact, according to him, it was the applicant (surety) who had produced the accused along with an application filed in the Court. This fact is recorded in another order passed by the trial Judge on the same day (29-1-1992) on the application filed by the applicant herein. He further contends that it is a cardinal principle of criminal justice that a person who offers himself to be a surety for release of an accused person.
3. Facing a criminal trial in fact acts in aid of justice. The applicant according to him is not a professional person in this respect, but had in good faith offered himself to be a surety for the accused. He had made an effort himself to secure the presence of the accused in Court for his trial.
4. Under the circumstances he contends that no amount of the bond be recovered from him.
5. Karachi 159 Mr. Azizur Rehman, Advocate appearing for the State, frankly states that in the circumstances of the present case this Court may take a liberal view and reduce the amount to be recovered from the applicant on account of forfeiture of the bond.
6. I find from the record that the accused had jumped bail. For over 18 months and was produced by the surety only after the entire amount of the surety bond was ordered to be forfeited by the Court.
7. No grounds are therefore made out to set aside the order impugned in this application. However, since the accused has been produced by the surety himself and non- A bailable warrants issued by the trial Judge bore no fruit I am inclined to reduce the amount to be forfeited under the bond to a sum of Rs.2,000 (Rupees two thousands) only instead of entire amount of the bond.
8. This Revision Application is accordingly allowed only to the extent stated above.
9. N.H.Q./B-217/K