' The brief facts leading to this Criminal Revision are that one Yakoob Kosh was granted bail by Sukkur Bench of this Court on 7-10-1990 vide Criminal Bail Application No,L556/.1990 in the sum of Rs,50,000 and the present applicant stood surety. Yakoob Kosh was released on bail on 9-10-1990 with the direction that he had to appear before IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana on 10-10- 1990 which he failed. The learned trial Court issued process repeatedly against the accused so also notices to the surety, the present applicant. Non-bailable warrants issued against the accused could not be served nor the notices issued to the applicant. Finding no other way, the learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge passed this order on 29-4-1992 after the lapse of two years and forfeited the surety bond and directed the present applicant/surety to pay the surety amount of Rs,50,000 and issued such direction to the Mukhtiarkar, Ratodero. Against this order, present Criminal Revision has been filed.
2. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant are that notice was not served on the applicant, as such he is condemned unheard. He has further argued that the applicant should have been given chance to produce the accused in Court, as such he has relied on 1990 PCr.LJ 95.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General has opposed and has argued that the accused was released on 9-10-1990 with the direction to appear before the trial Court on 10-10-1990 but he failed to do so in spite of the repeated Non-bailable warrants. The notice was also issued to the surety repeatedly but according to him, the surety also avoided the service and failed to appear before the Court. According to him, almost five years have passed but the surety has not taken any effort to approach the trial Court and move any application. He has also failed to procure the attendance of the accused, as such, the order of the learned trial Judge is justified.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the counsel and I am of the view that the learned trial Judge should have examined the process-server in case of non-service on the surety in order to ascertain whether the surety is avoiding the service deliberately or he was not available or the service was not effected due to the negligence of the process-server or the agency. I feel that the surety is penalized and condemned unheard. I, therefore, allow this Revision with the direction that the learned trial Judge should examine the process-server and give chance to the surety and in case the surety fails to produce the accused in Court, then alone the forfeiture order can be passed by the Court. This Revision is accordingly allowed.