' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of proceedings pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge/M.I.C., Bannu in regard to the payment of the confiscated amount of a bail bond by instalments, pursuant to the order dated 29-9-1988.
2. Briefly, the facts culminating in this application are that the petitioner Saiful Malook had stood surety for one Farid Khan in the sum of Rs, 20,000 in a case under section 458/411/120, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station, Mandan, District Bannu vide F.I.R. No, 1% dated 13-8-1985. The accused absented himself when required to attend the trial Court and resultantly the learned Senior Civil Judge/M.I.C. Bannu who was seized of the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Vide an order dated 29-9-1988 forfeited the bail bond and while confiscating the whole amount of bail allowed the deposit by instalments. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned District Magistrate, Bannu but without success and the revision petition filed by him before the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5-3-1989 and the application filed by him for its restoration was also dismissed on 27-5-1989. While the petitioner was struggling for an equitable relief two other sureties Zabib Khan and Nandar Khan were arraigned for their failure to produce another co-accused in the same case and their surety bonds in the sum of Rs,30,000 were ordered to be confiscated by, the learned EAC-II, Bannu and the appeals filed by the sureties were rejected by the learned District Magistrate, Bannu on 27-10-1987 but on acceptance of their revision petition by the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu on 16-12-1987 they were ordered to deposit Rs, 2,000 each.
Inspired by the said order the petitioner made an attempt to get the order dated 29-9-1988 reviewed but in vain and thereafter he deposited two instalments amounting to Rs, 4,000 and filed this petition when a warrant of arrest was issued against him by learned Senior Civil Judge/M.I.C., Bannu.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Advocate-General I have come to the conclusion that a case for interference stands made out. The petitioner is neither related to the accused nor there is anything on record to suggest that he was a privy to his designs. It appears that he had stood surety not for monetary gain but out of sheer A benevolence and taking undue advantage of his traditional hospitality for a "Musafir" the accused has betrayed his trust. His revision petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 5-3-1989 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bannu in the face of an earlier order dated 16-12-1987 whereby in the same case the confiscated amount of a bail bond furnished in respect of a co-accused by two other sureties was reduced from Rs, 30,000 to Rs, 4,000. Justice and equity demand that the petitioner should be brought at par with the other sureties particularly when he has already deposited a sum of Rs, 4,000 which comes to 1/5th of the total confiscated amount.
' In the result this application is accepted, the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge/ MIC, Bannu dated 29-9-1988 is modified to this extent that the confiscated amount of the bail bond furnished by the petitioner is reduced from Rs,20,000 to Rs,4,000, which the petitioner has already deposited, and the proceedings for the recovery of the remaining amount are quashed.