' The applicant Haji Sikandar Ali stood surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 for accused Amanullah, who was facing trial for offence under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (E.O.H.) Ordinance and section 13-D of Arms Ordinance. The accused Amanullah attended the Court from 18-10-1990 to 11- 11-1990. Because he remained absent without intimation, the bail bonds were cancelled and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued against the applicant. On 12-1-1992 when the applicant appeared before the Court he moved an application and informed the Court that the accused was arrested by Tando Masti Police, District Khairpur. Production Order was issued to the District Jail Authorities, Khairpur. On 20-1-1992 the applicant through another application informed the Court that accused was confined in District Jail, Khairpur. The production order was again issued and a report was called as to from which date accused was confined in said jail. The Superintendent District Jail, Khairpur reported that the accused was confined in jail since 14-1-1992. The learned trial Court, therefore, not accepting that the accused was in jail since 11-11-1990 and treating his absence as deliberate and without just cause passed the impugned order, dated 15-9-1993 and imposed penalty of Rs,30,000 directing applicant to pay said amount within one month and in case of his failure to pay the amount, further directed that his movable property be attached. Applicant has challenged said order in this revision application.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the A.A.-G. The later has opposed this application. It is contended by Mr. Khawaja Sharful Islam, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant that the applicant offered to stand surety for humanitarian consideration and derived no gain out of it. He further argued that the amount of surety in such circumstances has not been proportionately reduced by the learned trial Court. In support of all these contentions learned Advocate referred to the cases reported in PLD 1963 SC 47 and 1984 PCr.LJ 1573.
3. I have gone through the record and have perused the impugned order. The ground taken by the applicant/surety before the trial Court that the absence of applicant from the Court was for the reason that he was detained in Khairpur Jail in some other case, was found to be incorrect. The absence of applicant from Court w,e,f, 11-11-1990 till 14-1-1992 is not explained and during this period applicant remained absconder and the trial of the case against him was hampered. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicant voluntarily offered himself as surety for the accused Amanullah in the sum of Rs,50,000 and it was on account of any humanitarian consideration and not for any monetary gain. The trial Court has already reduced the amount from Rs,50,000 to Rs,30,000. In view of the case-law reported in 1991 SCM R 1313, applicant is not entitled to the relief prayed for in this revision application, which having no merit is hereby dismissed.