' The present revision petition is directed against the order, dated 25-7-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala whereby the bail bond of Rs,10,000 was forfeited submitted by the petitioner on behalf of Mst. Mumtaz alias Miraj Bibi who was allowed pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order, dated 16-1-1992 in case F.I.R. No,4/92 dated 13-1- 1992 of Police Station Vanike Tarrar, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala. Mst. Mumtaz alias Miraj Bibi did not appear in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 28-1-1992 and her application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed. A notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was also issued to the petitioner for 10-3-1992.
2. That the petitioner appeared on 10-3-1992 alongwith an application for pre-arrest bail of Mst.
Mumtaz alias Miraj Bibi and she was admitted to interim bail in the sum of Rs,20,000. A notice was issued to the State for 21-3-1992. On 21-3-1992 it was reported that the case against Mst. Mumtaz Bibi had been cancelled, so the application was dismissed as being withdrawn and having become infructuous.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner stood surety for Mst. Mumtaz alias Miraj Bibi out of benevolence and not for the monetary gain and her non-appearance on 28- 1-1992 was not intentional and wilful, so she appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 10-3-1992 and she was admitted to interim bail considering her absence as being not wilful. It was also argued that Mst. Mumtaz alias Miraj Bibi put in her appearance before the Court and she was allowed interim bail after taking into consideration all the facts relevant to the cancellation of her previous bail, therefore, the petitioner cannot be penalized for an act which had been duly considered by the said Court, and thereafter Mst. Mumtaz alias Miraj Bibi accused was considered to be on bail after arrest.
4. The perusal of the impugned orders dated 10-3-1992 and 21-3-1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as it is clear that the interim bail was allowed to the petitioner on 10-3-1992.
5. In view of what has been stated above as Mst. Mumtaz alias Miraj Bibi had put in appearance before the Court and who had thus surrendered herself to the jurisdiction of the said Court and the said Court had after having heard the accused allowed her interim bail before arrest, therefore, the present petitioner had absolved himself of his legal liability to produce the said accused before the Court.
6. In view of what has been stated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. Hence the criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order, dated 25-7-1992 is hereby set aside.
Revision .