' The present criminal revision petition is directed against the order, dated 18-6-1991, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, had directed for the forfeiture of the bail bonds furnished by the present petitioners in favour of accused Zulfiqar and Abdul Hamid in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,34/91, dated 2-4-1991 under section 337-F, P.P.C. At Police Station Kotli Said Amir, District Sialkot, pursuant to the interim pre-arrest bail allowed to the said accused by the said learned lower Court (i,e, petitioner No,1 Muhammad Yousaf had furnished bail bonds for Zulfigar, whereas petitioner No,2 Abdul Rashid had furnished bail bonds for accused Abdul Hamid).
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners and the State were heard at length and the record of the case perused with their assistance. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bail bonds furnished on behalf of the accused were pursuant to the order, dated 6-4-1991 allowing interim pre-arrest bail to them by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot, and that thereafter the said accused had appeared before the said learned Court on two dates i,e, 14-4-1991 and 25-4-1991, but had obtained from doing so on 8-5-1991, whereupon the pre-arrest bail, allowed to them, was withdrawn. Further submitted in this respect, that, thereafter, the said two accused had again applied for pre-arrest bail on that very date i,e, 8-5-1991 and had been duly allowed interim pre-arrest bail by the order of even date by the same learned Additional Sessions Judge, and that the accused had been appearing before the learned lower Court till the date i,e, 30-5- 1991, when the pre-arrest bail was not confirmed.
3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that, nevertheless, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order, dated 8-5-1991 i,e, the same date on which their earlier pre- arrest bail petition was dismissed, had directed for the issuance of show-cause notice to the petitioners, but the accused were again allowed interim pre-arrest bail pursuant to their filing of a fresh petition for the same, without taking notice of the fact that the accused in question had surrendered themselves before the Court. Further argued that no action was called for against the present petitioners who had submitted bail bonds pursuant to the order, dated 6-4-1991 granting interim pre-arrest bail to the accused for the first time as stated above as the learned Additional Sessions Judge had deemed it appropriate to accept their presence before the Court on that very date and to readmit them to interim pre-arrest bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that pursuant to the show-cause notice, dated 8-5-1991 the petitioner had filed their written reply, which was to the effect, in brief, that due to wind storm and rain both the accused had reached the Court half an hour late, but the said explanation failed to find favour with the learned Additional, Sessions Judge and resultantly he had passed the impugned order, dated 18- 6-1991, directing for the forfeiture of the bail bonds, with the further direction that the petitioners shall deposit Rs,5,000 each by way of penalty, but without taking into consideration that the accused had put in appearance on the very date that they were required to attend the Court and the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to re-admit them to pre-arrest bail as stated above; whereas the only inference that can be drawn, pursuant thereto, is to the effect that the learned Court had accepted that the accused had put in appearance, as required, but half an hour later as recorded in the impugned order, dated 18-6-1991 itself.
4. The Court has given its anxious consideration to the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. The perusal of the impugned order, dated 18-6-1991 fully supports the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. Therein it has been recorded that the accused had reached the Court half an hour late on that date, within the Court hours, on which date i,e, 8-5-1991 pre-arrest bail petition of the said accused was fixed, though after the same had been dismissed because of their non-appearance at the time the said case was taken up. It has been further taken notice of that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to re-admit the said accused to interim pre-arrest bail vide order, dated 8-5-1991 i,e, on the same date as their earlier pre-arrest bail petition was dismissed for their non-appearance as stated above.
5. Therefore, the Court is constrained to observe that under such circumstances, the petitioners stood absolved of their legal obligation to ensure the production of the said accused before the Court, firstly, as the accused had put in appearance before the Court and surrendered themselves thereto on the same date, as required, as stated above, and, secondly, as thereafter the Court had once again admitted them to interim bail before arrest, thus restraining itself from taking any penal action against them. Therefore, following the rule of consistency and logic, the only course to be adopted, in all fairness, is that the petitioners should have been dealt with the same benevolence and leniency by foregoing the mechanical manner of imposing the penalty by the impugned order which was, thus, rendered oppressive, hence illegal being arbitrary and capricious under the facts and circumstances highlighted.
6. Therefore, pursuant to the above discussion, the present criminal revision petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 18-6-1991 is hereby set aside.
Revision .