1. Exemption is allowed but subject to all just exceptions.
2. It has been contended before me that the present applicant was, in fact, granted bail in Crime No,50 of 1994 registered under section 17(3), Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979 read with sections 364 and 511, P.P.C. Soon upon being released on bail in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount, the applicant was stated to have absented and did not attend the proceedings before the trial Court. Consequently, non-bailable warrants of his arrest were issued and proclamation under sections 87 and 88 of the Cr.P.C. Was pressed into service and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has not abused or misused the concession of bail accorded to him earlier but it was under circumstantial compulsion and he had remained absent before the trial Court.
Keeping in view the aforementioned fact remains that the applicant was deemed fit to be entitled to the concession of bail earlier but having misused the same does not alter the merits of the case that the applicant would be entitled to the concession of bail. The learned State Counsel raises no objection to the grant of bail to the applicant but subject to certain conditionalities. Such conditionalities have been requested in terms of forfeiture of certain portion of his surety amount before the present applicant is granted bail. It is hereby ordered that the applicant shall be released on bail upon his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of this Court. Prior to such acceptance of surety forfeiture of his surety amount to the extent of 10 per cent. Shall be deposited with the Additional Registrar of this Court. It seems that forfeiture to the extent of 10 per cent. Would be reasonable punishment for having absented from the trial Court. Application is allowed and disposed of accordingly.