' This revision petition is directed against the order, dated 2-10-1997 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, D.G. Khan whereby he burdened the petitioner/surety with an amount of Rs,20,000 in proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly .The facts of the case are that Faiz Muhammad petitioner stood surety for Atta Muhammad accused in case F.I.R. No,137 of 1997, under section 302/109/34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Kot Chhutta, District Dera Ghazi Khan, who was admitted to interim pre-arrest bail on 26-5-1997 subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety in the like amount.
The case was adjourned to 13-6-1997 on which date the learned Additional Sessions Judge was transferred. The case was then adjourned to 25-6-1997. On that date the learned Additional Sessions Judge was on tour, therefore, the case was adjourned to 28-6-1997. On 28-6-1997 the accused person did not appear and instead an application was moved praying that he had suffered heart attack, therefore, adjournment may be granted. Since the application was not accompanied by any medical certificate his bail was withdrawn and notice was issued to the surety/petitioner.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused was again admitted to interim bail on 30-6-1997 on the ground that he was ill on the previous date of hearing i,e, 28-6- 1997. His admission to interim bail shows that the absence of the accused person was not willful.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge himself though by implication admitted that the accused was unable to appear on 28-6-1997 on account of illness. The bail application is still pending. It is argued that the petitioner has not committed any default in the performance his duty. The accused failed to appear on the date of hearing and an application for adjournment was moved on his behalf. The default in appearance by the accused is practically of technical nature. The accused put up appearance on all the other dates of hearing. Therefore, the petitioner should not have been burdened with the amount of surety bond furnished by him.
4. The argument is not without force. The surety is stated not to be a professional person. He stood surety being relative of the accused person. In case an accused person is released on bail he is bound to furnish surety and anybody coming as surety in fact helps the administration of justice, therefore, he should not be burdened with amount of surety unless it is shown that he was a professional and frequently stood surety in cases and default by the accused is willful. In this case the surety is a genuine person and he furnished surety bond being relative of the accused, therefore, he should be dealt with leniently. Learned counsel for the State has although supported the impugned order yet has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the petitioner's learned counsel. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the accused person did appear on the next date of hearing i,e, 30-6-1997, the petitioner should not have been burdened with the surety amount. The petitioner is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order is set aside.