' This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 25-4-1992 passed by a Special Judge Central, Faisalabad, by which the bail bond of the petitioner was forfeited and he was ordered to deposit Rs,1,00,000 or the amount be realized by attachment and sale of property of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner on 19-1-1986 stood surety of Muhammad Rafiq for Rs,1,00,000 in case F.I.R.
No,125/85, Police Station F.I.A., Faisalabad under sections 17 and 22, Emigration Ordinance, and after his release on bail, the accused Muhammad Rafique had not appeared in the Court and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Were initiated for forfeiture of bond. The petitioner in obedience to the notice had appeared on 28-7-1991 and was directed to produce the accused till 10-9-1991. The petitioner could not appear on 2-2-1992 and the impugned order was passed on 25- 4-1992 accordingly not only against the petitioner but also against the other surety namely Ali Muhammad, father of Muhammad Rafiq accused.
3. It is contended that the petitioner could not appear in the Court as his real son aged 22 years died on 16-7-1991, while his real daughter aged 28 died on 5-9-1991 and due to bereavement in his family the petitioner suffered severe depression and was unable to attend proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Learned counel has not challenged the impugned order seriously, but has prayed for a lenient view. On the face of it, it seems clear that two persons i,e. The petitioner and father of the accused stood surety for Muhammad Rafiq out of ordinary fellow being; but they certainly appeared to have taken their responsibility altogether too lightly. It does not appear that the petitioner either gained any benefit from standing surety for Muhammad Rafique nor he appeared to be in any way concerned with his criminal activity or with his escape from Faisalabad and whether or not the petitioner made an attempt to inquire about the whereabouts of the accused. Taking all these circumstances into Account I find that the petitioner had indeed forfeited his bond, but I consider at the same time that the full amount of the bond need not have been required from him and that in all the events the default will be adequately punished by requiring him to pay an amount of Rs,10,000 and I alter the impugned . The petitioner/surety is present in Court who shall deposit the forfeited amount of Rs,10,000 within one month with the concerned Court.