' Vide: F.I.R. No, 908 lodged in Police Station, Takht Bhai, on 29-12-1995, one Abdul Shah, Constable (No,FRP-2567), Platoon No,10, son of Sikandar Shah, resident of Muhammad Shah Kili, was charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 302/324, P.P.C. After his arrest Abdul Shah accused applied for bail. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Takht Bhai (name not mentioned in the order), by his order, dated 4-3-1996, released him on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) with two sureties, each in the like amount, to his (S.D.M.) satisfaction. The requisite bail bonds were submitted by the accused duly executed by him as well as his two sureties including the petitioner. However, a bail cancellation application was filed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge wherein it was prayed that the concession of bail granted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate be recalled. Abdul Shah was accordingly summoned. Since Abdul Shah did not appear before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, his bail was recalled with the direction that the sureties be proceeded against under section 514, Cr. P. C .
2. Proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Were accordingly initiated by the Civil Judge/M.I.C., Takht Bhai, who by his order, dated 14-9-1996, confiscated/forfeited the bail bonds, submitted by the sureties including the petitioner, and the sureties were directed to deposit an amount of Rs,20,000 each, in the Court failing which the same was to be recovered as arrears of the land revenue.
3. Mst. Dilraz, the wife of the deceased, challenged the verdict of the Civil Judge M.I.C. On the grounds that the order of the Civil Judge was improper illegal in the circumstances of the case. The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition, set aside the order of the Civil Judge, forfeited the bail bonds and ordered that the sureties shall deposit Rs,2,30,000 (two lacs thirty thousands) in equal share.
4. Not contended with the decision impugned, Said Mullah Shah, petitioner herein, has challenged its validity/legality by filing this petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
5. Mr. Mazullah Khan Barkandi, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ziaur Rehman Khan, Assistant Advocate-General for the State present and heard. Record of the same perused.
6. It is not denied that the petitioner had stood as a surety for Abdul Shah accused who was released on bail by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 4-3-1996. However, when the said accused was summoned regarding the application for cancellation of his bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, he absconded. Resultantly, the bail granted to the accused was recalled and in accordance with the directions of Additional Sessions Judge, the Civil Judge proceeded against the sureties and forfeited their bail bonds and directed the petitioner to deposit Rs,20,000. Later, the said amount was enhanced to Rs,1,15,000 by the Additional Sessions Judge.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that since the surety/petitioner, is a poor person, therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge was not justified to forfeit the bail bonds to the extent of Rs,1,15,000 which was not warranted in the circumstances. In support of his contention he placed reliance on case Dildar and another v. The State, reported in PLD 1963 Supreme Court 47, wherein it was held as under:- "Where, however, we find defect in the proceedings taken against the appellants is in this, namely, that no effort appears to have been made by the Courts below to enquire into the relevant matters affecting the decree of their responsibility. Sureties are not constituted as custodians of accused persons, and in the absence of proof to the contrary, it may generally be assumed that they do not gain by standing surety. The system of releasing accused persons on bail has several aspects of importance to the administration of justice generally. It avoids anything in the nature of punishment in advance, since restraint upon liberty even when applied for the purpose of ensuring that a case is duly enquired into and judged, necessarily involves loss of personal rights. At the same time the release of accused persons on bail assists in the administration of justice by preventing over-crowding in the available space of imprisonment. Therefore, in dealing with the cases of sureties who are in default, a balance has to be held between undue leniency, which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the Course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue severity, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward and give bail for persons under accusation. Finally, in assessing to what extend the bond should be forfeited, the Court have regard to such matters as whether the sureties have any direct interest through financial or blood connection with the accused, whether they have connived at or procured the absence of the accused, and whether they done their best to secure his attendance. These matters have not been enquired into by the Courts below. We have accordingly thought fit to question the two sureties ourselves on these points."
8. Before proceedings further in the matter it would be appropriate to refer to some of the other judgments of the Supreme Court with regard to the confiscation of bail bonds. These are:---
(i) Malik Nazar Ellahi and another v. The State 1990 SCM R 1092.
' In this case registered under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, the accused was released on bail in the sum of Rs,10,000. He absconded. The Additional Sessions Judge concerned forfeited the bond to the extent of full amount. The High Court upon revision reduced the forfeited amount from Rs,10,000 to Rs,8,000. The Supreme Court declined petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court.
(ii) Muhammad Rashid and 2 others v. The State and others 1990 SCM R 227.
' This case related to an offence pertaining to narcotics. The Trial Court forfeited the full amount of surety bond, namely, Rs,50,000 in respect of each of the accused. The High Court upon revision reduced the same to Rs,40,000. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the above order of the High Court.
(iii) Jamroz Khan v. The State 1990 SCM R 1313.
' A murder case. The Additional Sessions Judge forfeited the full amount of surety bond, namely, 50,000. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court declined to interfere with the above order in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court declined to leave to appeal and maintained the original order. It was observed:--- "After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that Mushtaq Ahmad is admittedly charged for the offence of murder and it was the duty of the surety to have produced the attendance of Mushtaq accused and thus, no ground appears for us to show any leniency in the reduction of the forfeiture of bail bond of the full amount furnished by the petitioner. Thus, finding no force in this petition it is accordingly dismissed."
(iv) Muhammad Sharif and another v. The State 1994 SCM R 690.
' In this case, the Trial Court forfeited the entire surety bond amount of Rs,50,000. The High Court reduced the same to Rs,20,000 as the accused remained absconder for about eight months and thereafter he was arrested. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order.
(v) Muhammad Hussain and another v. The State PLD 1995 SC 348.
' This case involved two petitions for leave to appeal, which were disposed of by a common order.
In Criminal Petition No,262-L of 1994, the Trial Court forfeited the surety bond amount of Rs,10,000.
The High Court reduced the same to Rs,7,000 in a case under section 13/20/65 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965. Whereas in Criminal Petition, No,263-L of 1994, which related to an offence under section 324/337, P.P.C. The Trial Court forfeited the surety bond amount of Rs,50,000. The High Court reduced the same to Rs,25,000. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the above judgment of the High Court.
(vi) Malik Sher Ahmad Khan v. The State 1996 SCM R 244.
' In this case surety amount of Rs,50,000 was forfeited by the Magistrate concerned in a case under section 302, P.P.C. The High Court reduced the same to Rs,25,000. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the above order.
(vii) Zafar Ali and another v. The State 1996 SCM R 995.
' The Trial Court in a case under section 302, P.P.C. Forfeited Rs,75,000 out of Rs,1,00,000 of the surety bond amount, upon abscondence of the accused. The High Court reduced the above amount to Rs,60,000. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the above order of the High Court.
9. Additionally it may be mentioned here, that in a recent case reported as Zeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267, a Full Bench of the Honourable apex Court has held:--- "(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). ----S. 514---Bail Bond, forfeiture of---Once an accused person jumps bail bond, the entire surety amount become liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances---Courts in view of bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the precedent continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, should not show any leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount---Approach of Courts should be dynamic and progressive-oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bond.
' There has been overall deterioration in all spheres of life. The Crime rate has increased manifolds.
The criminal instinct/propensity has penetrated in all walks of life. Some of the personnel of the State functionaries/agencies which are entrusted with the duty to protect the life, property and honour of citizens, either themselves actively participate in the commission of the heinous crime or they provide protective umbrella to the criminals. Their credibility has been denuded to the extent that the victims of the crimes do not approach them for their help or protection which they are otherwise entitled to as a matter of right under the Constitution.
' It has now become common that the accused persons involved in heinous offence, if succeed, in obtaining bail, jump the bail bond. To check such tendency and to provide deterrent, special provisions have been enacted and/or are being enacted in the special statutes prescribing the minimum amount of bail bond.
' Keeping in view the bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the unprecedented continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, the Courts should not show any undue leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. Their approach should be dynamic and progressive- oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bonds. There is no legal requirement that full bail bond amount should not be forfeited, on the contrary, once an accused person jumps bail bonds, the entire surety amount becomes liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances."
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898). ----S. 514---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Bail Bond, forfeiture of---Jumping bail bond by accused person---Effect---Accused was allegedly involved in a case in which eight persons were murdered and a number of persons were injured-Accused, at the relevant time was Station House Officer of a Police Station, and he was expected to behave more in civilized manner than an ordinary criminal person---Surety was father-in-law of the accused and, therefore, he was in a better position to produce the accused than a stranger---Surety was provided opportunities to secure attendance of accused but he failed---Supreme Court, in view, of such legal and factual position, ordered the forfeiture of the full amount of bail bond (Rs,2,00,000)."
10. In the light of the above decisions of the Supreme Court and on a tentative assessment of the record, which is before me, I am of the considered view that the Additional Sessions Judge has duly taken into his consideration/account all the material facts of the case and has recorded a speaking order which shows proper application of judicial mind. Since the order impugned is neither arbitrary nor perverse, therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered with/set aside.
11. This petition filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Has no substance and is dismissed.