' The petitioner stood surety for Muhammad Siddique accused in case F.I.R. No,215 of 1999 lodged at Police Station Chak Baidi, District Pakpattan Sharif, under sections 337-A(i), 337-A(ii), 337-F(i), 337- H(ii), 148 and 149, P.P.C., in an anticipatory bail matter. The petitioner did not appear in the early hours of the day in the Court and, therefore, the following order was passed against him: "Petitioner has not turned up so far till 8-55 a.m. There is no plausible explanation for his non- appearance before this Court. Hence, this bail petition is dismissed. Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner is recalled and cancelled.
' After forfeiture of bail bond and surety bond, show-cause notice under section 514 Cr.P.C. Be issued to the surety of present petitioner namely Muhammad Bilal. Separate file be prepared and surety be summoned for 31-7-1999."
2. On the same date, he later appeared when the following order was passed: "Submitted that in the morning at the time of call of his first pre-arrest bail petition due to demise of his close relative, petitioner could not attend this Court, therefore, his previous bail petition was dismissed due the non-prosecution of the petitioner.
' Be that as it may, notice and record for 31-7-1999.
' Meanwhile, admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety, in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court. He shall join the investigation and also appear before this Court on each date of hearing."
3. Anyway, Muhamamd Bilal who had stood surety for the petitioner Muhammad Siddique, was proceeded on the basis of forfeiture of the bail bonds vide orders of learned Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, dated 20-7-1999. It was on 3-12-1999 when he was proceeded ex parte and was asked to pay the full amount of the bail bond furnished by him and it was ordered that his movable property be attached. The learned Sessions Judge also issued a warrant of attachment.
4. At the call of the Court, learned counsel for the State is present and both parties have addressed arguments. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Muhammad Siddique had not appeared in the early hours of the morning but he did appear later on when he was given bail against a fresh surety bond of Rs,50,000. That after granting him ad interim bail on his reappearance in the Court, the order, dated 20-7-1999 became of no consequence. As the person for whom the surety bond was furnished had produced himself before the Court, but was again released on fresh bail bonds.
5. That the purpose of standing surety was for purposes of production of the person for whom the surety was given. And when he appears before the Court, the liability of the surety is over and then the matter rests between the Court and the concerned accused. That as he had appeared, the Court ought to have expunged the order of 20-7-1999 because after 20-7-1999 someone else took over the responsibility of his production in his capacity as a surety.
6. Section 514 of the Cr.P.C. Is not to be interpreted in such a grammatical way. It must be remembered that grant of bail is an essential part of the system of administration of justice. It avoids punishing someone in advance and ensures liberty until a case is duly enquired into and adjudged. Whereas, the release of accused persons on bail helps in preventing overcrowding in the already overcrowded prisons. People come forward to stand surety for the accused out of ordinary fellow-fillings and invariably without any ambition for gain or benefit, rather for, mere benevolence.
Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who may be in default, a judicial mind is supposed to maintain a balance between undue leniency, which may be leading to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice. Whereas, on the other hand, undue severity may lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbors and friends to come forward, and give bail for persons under accusation. While maintaining this balance, the Courts are not supposed to act in a mechanical way. They are required to hold some sort of balance while determining to what extent a bond is to be forfeited. Some matters to be considered are: whether the sureties have any direct interest through financial or blood connection with the accused, whether they had connived with or procured the absence of the accused, and finally whether they have endeavored sufficiently to secure the attendance of the accused.
7. After the appearance of the accused in the Court later in the day and his furnishing fresh surety for his subsequent appearance, no ground was available to the Court of Session to impose any penalty on the previous surety. The order, dated 3-12-1999 are, therefore, being set aside being untenable in law.