' Applicant Ghulam Sarwar has challenged in revision, the order, dated 26-7-1999 passed by the learned III-Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu imposing penalty upon the applicant under section 514, Cr. P.0
2. The applicant had stood surety for accused Arbab Ali in a murder case in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (one lac) with personal recognizance bond executed by the accused himself. The accused after his release on bail did not attend a single date of hearing before the trial Court but absconded soon after his release a few days before 23-12-1998. The accused is absconding since then and has not been arrested.
3. The case diaries further reveal that the applicant was allowed opportunity from time to time to find out the accused for latter's production in Court. Eventually after a period of about six months learned trial Court not being satisfied with the explanation, to show-cause notice, of the applicant passed the impugned order.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Ali Azher Tunio, Assistant Advocate-General for the State. The latter has opposed the revision application and has supported the impugned order by referring to the case of Zeshan Kazmi v. The state PLD 1997 SC 934.
5. Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro mainly contended that the applicant had stood surety for the accused solely for his neighbourly relations with the accused and did not receive or expect any monetary or other fiscal favour. Learned counsel did not press any other ground. He has relied upon 1990 SCM R 1300, 2000 PCr.LJ 94 and 2000 PCr.LJ 172.
6. The case-law cited in support of the applicant is distinguishable. The case of Muhammad Sharif v. The State 1990 SCM R 1300 relied upon in favour of the applicant is also distinguishable for the reason that the accused. In the case was re-arrested with the efforts of the surety.
7. A stranger can hardly be expected to stand surety for an accused of a criminal case. It is always due to certain relations, contacts or considerations that a person offers himself as a surety for the accused. Such surety obliging the accused by getting him released as a free person, certainly cannot be termed as a totally disinterested person. Court though has to take a lenient view in case of penalty imposed upon a surety yet a line has to be drawn in a case where the accused after his release on bail absconded and was rearrested and an accused who after his release on bail did not turn his face to Court but went in hiding and defied the conditions of his bond. Experience would show that in numerous cases a surety is found hand in glove with the accused and the amount of fine got reduced on the ground of benevolence and humanitarian considerations is ultimately paid by the accused himself.
Poor economic condition of the surety was also projected. It may be pointed out that a person is accepted as surety for an accused only when he is certified by a competent authority to be a solvent person or is found by the Court as such. It tastes bad to hear from a surety that he is a poor person, poor in relation to the amount of surety bond executed by him voluntarily.
' I view of the above, I would however, reduce the amount of penalty by Rs,25,000 only and direct the applicant to pay a fine of Rs,75,000 within C a period of two months.
' This revision application is allowed to that extent only. These are the reasons for today's short order.