' This revision petition is directed against order, dated 24-11-1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Hafiz Abad imposing penalty of Rs,50,000 on the petitioner and forfeiture of his surety bond on failure to produce the accused in the Court.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner stood surety for Shaukat Ali accused who was involved in a case vide F.I.R. No,244 of 1994 under section 302/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Kasogi, Hafizabad. Since Shaukat Ali absented on 10-10-1997, so his bail bond was cancelled and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to the surety i,e, petitioner. The surety was personally served for 23-10-1997 but he did not turn up in Court. The statement of process server was recorded on 20-11-1997 to the effect that notice was personally served upon the petitioner.
Consequently vide order, dated 24-114997 petitioner was directed 'to deposit the surety amount of Rs,50,000 within one month.
3. The only grievance of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Trial Court while passing order, dated 24-11-1997 has taken a very harsh view. His contention is that Courts have always been taking a lenient view and reducing the amounts and relied upon Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47, Ghulam Rasool v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 1891 (Lahore) and Zulfiqar and others v. The State 1990 AL1) 382(1). He further urged that accused Shaukat Ali was not related to the petitioner.
He was merely known to him and had furnished surety in heavy amount on merely humanitarian grounds.
4. A perusal of the authorities referred above clearly shows that the facts of the said authorities are not identical to the facts in hand. It is evident from 1990 ALD 382(1) that petitioners in that case made hectic efforts but failed. They prayed for further adjournment which request was not acceded. However, it is also evident that just after 18 days of the rejection of the prayer of the petitioners for more time to produce the accused, the accused was arrested and it was established from the police report that the petitioners had also rendered considerable help for securing arrest of the accused person. Similarly the facts discussed in 1989 PCr.LJ 1891 (Lahore) reveal that upon order under section 514, Cr.P.C. The surety did appear and was directed to show cause as to why the amount of surety bond be not realized as he failed to produce the accused and case had to be adjourned to 27-10-1987. On that date accused entered appearance, but petitioner failed to appear nor any explanation was submitted and consequently the Trial Court confiscated the entire amount and directed that the same be realized from him. However, it is evident from this authority that accused did appear in the Court later on. So far as PLD 1963 SC 47 is concerned, it also reveals that efforts were also made by the surety to produce the accused.
5. A discourse of facts narrated above clearly reveals that petitioner stood surety for the accused Shaukat Ali who absented on 10-10-1997. He was issued a notice under section 514, Cr.P.C., which was served upon him and even then he did not bother to attend the Court and explain his position regarding absence of accused. He also did not render any help to police to trace out the accused.
This attitude of the petitioner tells upon his bona fides. It is pertinent to point out that Shaukat Ali accused has again committed murder and is absconding.
6. In the light of facts stated above, it is clear that Trial Court has passed the impugned order in accordance with law. Accordingly, revision petition fails and is dismissed in limited.
Revision .