Briefly stated the background of the case is that Sher Ali and Muhammad Shafi, petitioners sought sureties for the accused Khalid in the case of F.I.R. No,459 of 1994 under section 302, P.P.C.
Registered at Police Station Hajipura, Sialkot, after the said accused was admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot. The sureties bonds were filed in the said Court on 4-12- 1997 which were accepted by the Court and the accused was released on bail. Later on, the accused absented himself and was not traceable.
2. The proceedings were initiated under section 514, Cr.P.C. Against the present petitioners. They were issued a notice to show cause as to why the bail bonds for Rs,50,000 should not be forfeited.
The petitioners appeared and filed their reply to the said notice. They pleaded that they tried their level best to trace out the accused but he was not available and that the sureties were not given for their personal benefits and that it was the social pressure of relationship that they had stood as sureties and that they were very poor persons and request for leniency. The matter was contested and the learned counsel for the complainant took stand that no leniency should be shown to a such surety who have in a way abetted with the accused in his absconsion. The learned Additional Sessions Judge imposed the impugned penalty of Rs,25,000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have taken stand that the petitioners are not beneficiaries of the accused nor they have obtained any consideration to stand as sureties and that they are very poor persons and had sought sureties for the name of God only to advance purpose and that they have made every possible effort to trace out the accused and that they have spent more than sureties amount even for the location of the accused but have failed. In the alternate, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned trial Court did not hold the proper inquiry into the matter and summarily disposed of the matter and that even the case-law on the subject was ignored. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that if condonation is not granted the penalty may kindly be reduced to 1/5th in the light of the judicial pronouncement of the superior Courts.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Sardar Khan v.Crown PLD 1952 Lah. 645, Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47 and Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 406.
5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the petition and supported the impugned order.
6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.
7. In the present case the learned Additional Sessions Judge has admittedly issued notice to show cause. This was with the view to satisfy himself that bond has been forfeited. The petitioners have appeared, submitted the reply. Arguments were heard from both the sides and thereafter, the order was passed giving the grounds justifying forfeiture of the bonds. Hence, there is no illegality in the order so far as the forfeiture of the bonds is concerned.
8. The relevant law regarding remittance of any portion of the penalty as contained under section 514(5), Cr.P.C. Reads as under:-- "514(5). The Court may, at its discretion, remit any portion of the penalty mentioned and enforce payment in part only."
Regarding leniency, this Court in the case of Sardar Khan v. Crown PLD 1952 Lah. 645 observed as under:-- "The Court should regulate the imposition of penalty in cases of default from the point of view, not so much of assessing the 'guilt' of the sureties in terms of money, but with the object of maintaining the system in its integrity. In other words, if leniency towards, sureties became the general rule, the whole system of release of accused persons on bail might require to be re-examined to ensure the proper progress of criminal cases. At the same time it is obviously not necessary or desirable in the average case, that the Court should lean in the direction of severity, for this might lead to difficulties in production of sureties, having the effect of overcrowding the judicial lock-ups and other attendant inconveniences."
9. In the case of Dildar and another v. The State PLD 1963 SC 47, the Honourable Supreme Court observed:-- .... a balance has to be held between undue leniency, which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue severity, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbours and friends to come forward ... "
The view was reiterated in the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 406, it was also observed by the Honourable Supreme Court:-- .. I am also in agreement with the proposition that there is no law prohibiting forfeiture of the full amount of surety bond if the circumstances of the case so required. What portion of the amount of a surety bond is to be forfeited in a particular case, depends entirely on the circumstances of that case.."
In the light of the above precedent, I am convinced when the petitioners have tried their level best and they have fully assisted in the search of the accused and that they have also no personal benefit, they deserve the leniency and I reduce the penalty from Rs,25,000 to Rs,5,000 each. The revision petition is accordingly partly allowed to that extent. 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.