' This criminal revision has been preferred by Mumtaz Ahmad son of Allah Bakhsh, resident of Mohallah Loharan, Haripur, assailing the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Haripur, dated 29-6-1998.
2. Facts of the case briefly are that an accused namely Mahmood son of Gul Meran an Afghan refugee involved in case F.I.R. No,29, dated 28-1-1997 of Police Station Kotnajibullah for an offence under section 302, Qisas and Diyat Ordinance was released on bail by the competent Court for which two persons namely Momin Shah and Nazar Elahi stood sureties. The present petitioner namely Mumtaz Ahmad was the attesting witness of the bail bond.
3. During the trial of the case Mahmood accused absconded and notice under section 514, Cr.P.C.
Was issued to the sureties whereafter bail bond was confiscated.
4. Nazar Elahi one of the sureties could not deposit the penalty of the forfeiture. The trial Court vide the impugned order directed Mumtaz Ahmad the petitioner to make payment of the amount of penalty in case Nazar Elahi fails to do so.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly the two sureties namely Momin Shah and Nazar Elahi stood sureties for the principal accused and proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C.
Were initiated against them. It was, therefore, obligatory on them to have either produced the accused in Court or in the alternative face the consequences of the forfeiture of their bail bond. Ci
6. In the case in hand the petitioner only verified the bail bond. He is, therefore, not responsible for the appearance of the accused as contemplate A under section 499, Cr.P.C. As such no proceeding under section 514, Cr.P.C. Could be initiated against him. (Reliance is placed on PLD 1972 Azad J&K p.45).
7. In the circumstances it would, therefore, be illegal to over burden the petitioner with the penalty.
This revision petition is, therefore, accepted and the impugned order to the extent of penalizing the petitioner is set aside.