1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- The facts leading to the present criminal revision application are that applicant Nooruddin alias Haji by caste Memon stood surety in the sum of Rs,50,000 and executed such bond on 8-12-1995 for accused Zahir Shah, who was sent up under section 9 of Control of Narcotics Substance Ordinance, 1995 in the Court of Special Judge, Control of Narcotic Substance, Hyderabad, vide Crime No,56 of 1995 of Police Station Bhitai Nagar, Hyderabad. The accused Zahir Shah later on disappeared and his bail bond was forfeited by the trial Court on 21-5- 1996 and a notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was issued to the applicant. In response to the said notice the applicant/surety appeared before the trial Court and sought time for producing the accused and for submitting reply to the said notice. He sought various adjournments on this ground and ultimately on 28-4-1998, when the matter came up for the same purpose, before the trial Court, he did not appear and sent an application whereby he repeated the same request which was declined by the trial Court and no further time was allowed to him and he was ordered to pay Rs,50,000 of the surety bond executed by him within 15 days of the service of order.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicant/surety has contended that impugned order whereby it is ordered that the applicant should pay the entire amount of bond i,e, Rs,50,000 is harsh, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and equity; that the applicant stood surety for absconding accused out of benevolence and upon humanitarian grounds and not for monetary gain or personal benefit; that the applicant/surety made hectic efforts to locate the absconding accused and he went upto Peshawar in order to find him out his efforts failed and he was unable to find out his whereabouts; that the nonappearance of accused is beyond the control of applicant/surety; that the action under section 514, Cr.P.C. Could not be initiated against the surety when notice issued to accused, is served upon him and in response to it he appears before the trial Court. It is contended that the impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
3. ' We regret, we cannot agree with the contentions of the learned counsel.
4. The absconder accused Zahir Shah was sent up in a case of drug trafficking in which applicant stood surety before the trial Court. It has become a general practice that persons involved in drug trafficking usually abscond after grant of bail. Bail is nothing but change of custody, as after the grant of bail and consequent release from custody, accused is placed in the custody of the surety and he is responsible to produce him (accused) in the Court if and when so ordered or required. In case of non-appearance or non-production of the accused before the Court, the surety is liable to penalty under law. In the case in hand, admittedly, the accused Zahir Shah, who was facing charge under Narcotics Act belongs to up-country. The surety is resident of Hyderabad and is of different caste and community. There is nothing on the record which may suggest that applicant stood surety out of benevolence or on account of humanitarian grounds. It is the duty of the surety to trace out the accused and produce him before the Court and if in that regard he went to Peshawar in search of the accused is no ground for discharge from penalty provided by law. Moreover, no proof in this respect has been placed on record. The bare word of applicant is not sufficient and there is no documentary or other proof. This contention has, therefore, no force. There is no provision of law nor any citation has been quoted by the learned Advocate wherefrom it could be deduced that action under section 514, Cr.P.C: could only be initiated against the surety, when notice issued against the accused is served upon him in response thereof he appears before the Court. This contention is patently misconceived. Obviously the question of proceeding against a surety would arise only when the accused evades legal process and does not appear in Court.
5. Moreover, the trial Court provided ample opportunity to surety for producing the accused in the Court and for filing the reply of notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Admittedly, more than two years time was given to the surety but he failed to produce the accused. The applicant himself has stated in his application that non-appearance of accused is beyond his control, therefore, the order of the trial Court cannot be termed to have been passed in haste or that it was passed without proper opportunity having been provided to him.
6. ' Under the law a surety undertakes a solemn obligation. As held by the Honorable Supreme Court in Mehmood Ali Qasoori v. The State PLD 1963 SC 478 when a person is admitted to bail he is released from the custody of the official of the Court and is entrusted to that of persons known as his surety. They undertake to produce him in Court whenever required. When a person chooses to act as surety for another accused of such heinous offence as drug trafficking he does so at his own risk. There is little humanitarian involved such person in our view does not deserve any sympathy.
7. The order of forfeiture of bond and payment of the entire amount of Rs,50,000 in the peculiar facts of this case is neither illegal nor unjust.
8. ' For reaching the above conclusion we are fortified by the decisions in the case of Iftikhar Ahmed v.
9. The State reported in 1989 PCr.LJ 1918 and Jamroz Khan v. The State reported in 1990 SCM R 1313. The impugned order is neither harsh nor illegal but it is just and proper order which does not call for any interference.
10. ' By short order, dated 14-5-1998, we dismissed this revision application in liming and these are the detailed reasons therefor. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.