' The facts leading to this petition are that a case vide F.I.R. No,342, dated 26-7-1990 under section 302/307/148/149/353/332, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Malikwal, District dujrat against one Abid Hussain and four others. The accused were challaned and Abid Hussain Shah accused was granted bail pending decision of the case in the sum of Rs, 30,000. When the trial commenced Abid Hussain accused did not appear and it was reported that he had absconded and had gone out of the country. The learned trial Court took up the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. and forfeited the surety bonds vide order, dated 8-9-1992 as the petitioners failed to procure the appearance of the accused before the Court. A direction was also issued to pay Rs, 30,000 each as penalty failing which it was to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had executed surety bonds not for monetary benefits but for humanitarian ground; that they had made their best efforts to trace out the accused and as he had gone abroad so they could not do so; that the learned trial Court has failed to properly assess the extent to which the bonds were to be forfeited and that in any case penalty imposed on the petitioners was harsh.
3. Keeping the balance between the undue leniency and undue severity in the matter of forfeiture of bonds and recovery of the amount I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners carefully. I find that Abid Hussain Shah was involved in a murder case.
He was released from jail on the basis of bonds executed by both the petitioners whereby they undertook to produce him before the Court concerned on each date of heating and on his failure to appear before the Court they promised to pay Rs, 30,000 each as penalty. After his release the accused absconded and went abroad and did not appear before the trial Court. As such, failure on the part of the accused to appear before the Court was wilful and the condition of the bond having been broken the bonds stood forfeited. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had executed surety bonds through mere benevolence. It is also clear that the accused had absconded for ever and will not appear in the murder case. On my independent assessment I feel that no sufficient cause has been shown as to why the petitioners should not pay the entire amount of the bonds i.e. Rs,30,000 each but today both the petitioners have appeared in the Court as per direction of the learned predecessor and I find that they do not appear to be any rich persons. Taking into consideration this fact I am persuaded to reduce the penalty from Rs, 30,000 each to Rs, 15,000 each.
4. Resultantly the revision petition is disposed of. The trial Court shall proceed to receive the penalty amount in accordance with law.
Penalty reduced.