' Niamat, Mansha, Muhammad Siddique, Muhammad Sharif, Hashmat Bibi and Mst. Mukhtaran were involved as accused in a case under section 10/11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance (VII of 1979), registered vide F.I.R. No,216, dated 22-10-1989, at Police Station Toba Tek Singh. Two persons, Muhammad Amin and Beer Ali had stood sureties each in the amount of Rs,20,000 for Niamat accused, who absconded away after his release on bail. The bail bonds were forfeited in favour of the State, and the sureties were served with notices, calling upon them to show cause as to why the amount of security be not recovered from them.
2. Muhammad Amin took up the plea that he had furnished security for the accused on the request of a relative; and Beer Ali denied having stood surety and tendered surety bonds. On finding the aforesaid pleas to be untenable, the learned Sessions Judge, Tuba Tek Singh, Rao Muhammad Hayat, ordered forfeiture of half the amount of security from each one of them, and they were allowed time till 7-6-1992 to deposit the amount.
3. They have preferred the present revision petition, maintaining that they had not been afforded an adequate opportunity to submit their replies in writing and had also not been given enough time to find out the accused and cause his production in Court. Beer Ali said that he had disowned the development of having stood surety for the accused at all, but he was not permitted to lead evidence in that behalf. It was further urged that blood relationship of the sureties with the accused was not ascertained and their financial capability was not determined. Forfeiture of the sum of surety bonds, followed by attachment of the property of the sureties, was ordered in undue haste, according to the petitioners.
4. I am indeed amused to hear the learned counsel making these submissions; but I must appreciate that he has intelligently hit upon all available grounds, which in such cases could possibly be invoked. On even a superficial scrutiny however it has been discovered that the grounds do not have any substance and strength. On record there exist written replies of the sureties. If the Court starts lending ears to the pleas, as have been taken up by the sureties, the very purpose of asking an accused to furnish surety bonds would be frustrated. It is up to the person who stands surety to ascertain the credentials of the accused and satisfy himself about the prospects of the accused making appearance in the Court in the proceedings of trial, or even otherwise, whenever called upon to appear. The Court has no concern with whether the accused was known to the surety or whether the latter had expressed readiness to come to the rescue of the accused on personal satisfaction or on the request of someone else.
5. Even Beer Ali does not deny having affixed his thumb-impression on certain papers, which, he says, might have been used as surety bonds. His literacy or simplicity would be irrelevant. The surety bonds carry photostat copies of his national identity card and the presumption would be that he had stood surety for the accused knowingly. Whenever a person stands surety for an accused, he is not supposed to be oblivious of his responsibility in the matter. After the accused manages his release, his surety cannot be permitted to turn round and say that he was unaware of his obligations and he must not be made answerable for absence of the accused. It is an odd assertion that the surety had no fiduciary relationship and did not stand to gain any monetary benefit and had furnished security just out of benovelence or that there was no friendship or blood relationship between the surety and the accused. Similarly the surety cannot be heard saying that abscondence of the accused and failure on his part to attend the Court is beyond the control of the former. It is precisely personal appearance of the accused in the Court which the surety guarantees. What else he stands for, if the surety does not even take upon himself the responsibility to produce the accused.
6. It would be incorrect to say that no adequate opportunity was afforded to the sureties for tracing out the accused. Opportunity of hearing was provided to the sureties and they did submit their replies to the show-cause notices served upon them. An inquiry under section 514, Cr.P.C. Is manifestly of a summary character and the Court will not start taking evidence to satisfy the surety that what he maintains is without any evidence in support; it is the satisfaction of the Court and not that of surety. Which would matter. The learned counsel has not been able to convince the Court as to what is the spirit of the relevant provision referred to above, which he says has been ignored or infringed. The Court would have been within its rights to penalize the sureties, to the entire extent of the amount of security. They were, however, burdened with one-half of the liability, by which they had bound themselves. Without there being any force in the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the sureties, I would otherwise take somewhat lenient view and reduce the amount of penalty to Rs,6,000 in each case. The sureties must make the deposit within a period of six months; otherwise coercive measures permissible under the law shall be adopted to effect recovery.
7. A copy of this order shall be conveyed to the Sessions Court, Toba Tek Singh, alongwith record of the case. The petition stands disposed of.
Penalty amount reduced.