' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 24-4-1998 passed by the learned Judge in Chambers of Peshawar High Court dismissing revision petition filed by Syed Naveed Ali Shah, petitioner, against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kohat, whereby the amount of his surety bond amounting to Rs,1,00,000 had been forfeited and a direction for deposit till 28-10-1997 was made.
2. The facts in the background of the case are that the petitioner and one Mushtaq stood sureties for Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, father of the petitioner. Who was the accused of offences under sections 156(1)(8)(89) 157 and 178 read with section 219 of Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969) and under Articles 3 and 4 Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and executed bail bond in the sum of Rs,1.00,000 each. It appears that Syed Sajjad Ali Shah accused jumped the bail and absconded. In consequence, the petitioner was served with a notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. By the learned Sessions Judge, Kohat. The petitioner is alleged to have made best efforts to produce the accused but he could not do so because his father was under treatment in London. The reply put into the notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Was not found satisfactory by the learned trial Court, therefore, the entire amount of Rs,1,00,000 was forfeited with the direction to the petitioner to deposit it before 28- 10-1997.
3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed a revision petition in the Peshawar High Court for reduction of the amount of bail bond 'in the larger interest of the substantial justice'.
4. Ch. Naseer Ahmad, learned Advocate Supreme Court, in support of this titled petition, contended that the petitioner stood surety for father who has gone to London for treatment and has not at all connived at the disappearance of his father/accused. ' It was further contended that the petitioner/surety has not gained any monetary benefit but was motived ' by sheer feeling of a son'.
It was lastly contended that the co-surety of the petitioner, namely, Mushtaq has been ordered to deposit 1/10th of the forfeited amount and, thus, the former has been discriminated against in meting out a harsher treatment, In support of these propositions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on: (1) Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47), (2) Bahadur Khan v. The State (1976 PCr.LJ 1283), (3) Javid Iqbal v. The State (1985 PCr.LJ 1724), (4) Ali Jan v. State (1992 PCr.LJ 389).
5. All the case-law cited above has since been distinguished by this Court in the case of Malik Sher Ahmad Khan v. The State (1996 SCM R 244), Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 267) and Saffar Khan v. The State (1997 SCM R 1983).
6. The old precedent of Dildar (supra) was considered in the Full Bench case of this Court in Malik Sher Ahmad Khan (supra) authored by one of us (Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, J.), wherein the following reasoning in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment was given as under for distinguishing the two:-- "4. No doubt the sureties in the case of Dildar (supra) stood sureties out of what has been described as 'fellow-feeling' because they did not belong to the Province of residence of accused Amir Jan and, therefore, they did not know his antecedents. Again Amir Jan was stated to have died in Multan and had remained untraceable. On these considerations a lenient view was taken by this Court in Dildar's case.
5. In the instant case the petitioner is the Lambardar of the village to which Suleman accused belonged. He would be presumed to have had the knowledge of the credentials of Suleman accused. He was so dare devil that soon after his release on bail, he committed the murder (perhaps of his rivals) and had become fugitive from law. The case before us is, thus, clearly distinguishable from that of Dildar's case."
7. In the case of Saffar Khan (supra) we have made the following observations in para.6 which are reproduced hereunder:-- "We are inclined to approve the observations of the learned Chief Justice in this case that the attitude of the accused on account of leniency exhibited by the Court in imposition of penalty on the sureties is encouraging the accused to misuse the concession of bail by their absocondence. It is disquieting to note that the Courts seized of the matters in awarding the penalty on the forfeiture of bail bonds are not exercising the discretion equitably and justly. They are discharging this responsibility, to say the least without much care and caution often leading to misuse of the concession of bail by the accused by their abscondence and in most of the cases repeating, during that period, the commission of the same offences with impunity. It is with dismay to observe also that the Law Officers representing the interest of the State are also making undue concession without any hesitation thereby strengthening the sad trend of reducing the amount of penalty with shocking leniency."
8. In the instant case, the learned Judge, in exercise of his discretion has ordered the forfeiture of entire amount of bail bond. The discretion exercised by the learned trial Judge duly affirmed by the learned Single Judge in the High Court is not shown to be either perverse or fanciful. Syed Sajjad Ali Shah accused was the real father of the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner had connived at the abscondence of his father. The learned Single Judge in the High Court has rightly observed that the accused who was alleged to be in England undergoing treatment was not a convincing reason.
Further that taking into consideration the fact that the case against the father of the petitioner related to Narcotics wherein 30 Kg. Of Heroin had been recovered, the forfeiture of the entire amount of bail bond was justified.
9. For the above reasons, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is accordingly dismissed.