1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- By this criminal revision application the applicant/surety Abdul Latif son of Muhammad Pariyal Zanoor has assailed the order of the learned Special Judge (S.T.A.) passed in S.C. No,229 of 1997, whereby penalty of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) was imposed upon the applicant/surety.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 11-12-1992 at about 4-05 p.m. Complainant Hajan lodged F.I.R. With Police Station Jhalo of Taluka Dadu for offence punishable under sections 364-A, 342, 323, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Stating therein that he is a Zamindar and owns land in Deh Bhand. On 23-1-1991 he alongwith his nephew Qurban after looking their lands were returning back when they were abducted by dacoit Laiq Chandio and his companions including accused Mubeen for ransom.
3. Dacoits kept them in jungle for about one month, when the complainant wrote to his relatives for payment of ransom to dacoits, as such Rs,2,00,000 (two lac) were paid to dacoit Laiq Chandio and Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi who then released them after issuing threats not to report. When dacoit Laiq Chandio was arrested the complainant lodged the report.
4. ' The accused Mubeen who was shown absconder in the charge-sheet, surrendered before the trial Court and requested for his admission on pre-arrest bail. As such he was granted pre-arrest bail on 12-5-1997 in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) and the applicant stood surety, for him.
5. ' The accused Mubeen absented before the trial Court from 5-4-1999, as such his surety bond was forfeited and N.B.Ws. Against accused Mubeen were issued alongwith the notice to surety i.e. The applicant.
6. ' In pursuance to the notice, the applicant/surety appeared before the trial Court and sought time on 5-5-1999, and 24-5-1999 to produce the absconding accused, but later on he himself remained absent, therefore, again notice was issued to the applicant/surety, but he again sought time. On 20-9-1999, the applicant/surety moved another application for time on the ground that accused Mubeen was required by police in another case, therefore, police was in his search and he i.e. Applicant will also search and produce him before the trial Court. The leaned special Judge (S.T.A.) rejected the application of applicant/surety and passed the impugned order on 20-9-1999, whereby imposed the entire penalty of bail bond upon applicant/surety. .
7. ' We have heard Mr. Muharram Baloch learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mian Khan Malik, Additional Advocate-General on behalf of the State. We have also perused the record.
8. ' The perusal of record shows that on 13-10-1999, when this matter came up for hearing before this Court, learned Counsel for applicant/surety sought two weeks time for the production of absconding accused Mubeen before the trial Court. The request of surety was allowed and two weeks time was granted to the applicant/surety for production of accused Mubeen before the trial Court. But applicant/surety failed to produce the absconding accused Mubeen. Again on 27-10- 1999, when this matter came up for hearing the learned Counsel again sought further two weeks time and it was allowed to him. It appears that till to date the applicant/surety has failed to produce the absconding accused Mubeen before the trial Court.
9. The surety was given sufficient time for producing the absconding I accused by the trial Court, as well as by this Court, but he failed to produce A the accused.
10. ' It is well-settled that bail is nothing but chance of custody. The accused was placed in the custody of the surety and he was responsible for production of accused in Court, if and when so ordered or required. In case of non-appearance or non-production of accused before Court, surety would be liable to penalty under law. However, while imposing the penalty Court has to keep in mind the principle of undue leniency and undue severity. The conduct of the applicant/surety before the trial Court as well as before this Court shows that he did not take any positive steps to search for the absconding accused and produce him before the trial Court, but protracted the matter on one and another ground/reason. The impugned order of the trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or factual infirmity.
11. ' Consequently, the present application merits no consideration and stands dismissed.
12. ' Before parting with this matter, we would like to make it clear That the trial Court shall recover the penalty amount from the surety strictly in accordance with law.