MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---This appeal has been directed against an order passed by the Shariat Court on 9-8-2000, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants, herein, was dismissed.
2. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that a case under section 302, A.P.C, read with 13/20/65, Arms Ordinance was registered against accused Ghafar Zaih, son of Aurangzeb, case Jat, resident of Nathia, Tehsil and District Mirpur which was pending before the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction Mirpur. The trial Court vide its order dated 27-2-1999 released the accused Ghafar Zaib on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.l0 lacs and a bail bond of the same amount comprising of two sureties. 'Ch., Muhammad Yunus son of Ch. Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Haneef son of Allah Dad, case Jat, residents of Nathia, Tehsil and District Mirpur; appellants herein, stood as sureties for the said accused and executed a bond of Rs.10' lass binding themselves severally and, jointly. After having been released on bail, accused Ghafar Zaib absconded and till to-date he did not surrender himself before the Court. The trial Court while confiscating the bail bonds of the appellants proceeded against the accused under section 512, Cr.P.C. And on 13-9-1999 declared the accused -as proclaimed offender.
3. On the proceedings initiated against the confiscation of bail bonds the District Criminal Court after hearing the objections from the sureties vide its order dated 14-10-1999 confiscated the entire amount of Rs.10 lacs for which the appellants stood as sureties for the accused. Feeling aggrieved by the order of trial Court dated 14-10-1999 the appellants preferred an appeal before the Shariat Court which was dismissed vide its order dated 9-8-2000. It is the aforesaid order of the Shariat Court which is the subject of present appeal. '
4. In support of appeal it was vehemently contended by Ch. Muhammad Riaz Alain, the learned counsel for the appellants, that the appellants stood sureties for the accused out of benevolence and not for any personal gains and despite their best efforts they could not trace out the accused to present him before the Court. In support of his contentions the learned counsel placed reliance on Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47) and Jan Muhammad and another v. The State (1992 PCr.LJ 2397).
5. On the other hand) Mr. Abdul Khaliq Ansari, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant, strongly controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants. He contended that the accused is involved in a heinous offence of murder which took place in the daylight and soon after being released on bail by the trial Court, he made good his escape and thereafter did not attend a single date of hearing. The learned counsel pressed into service the submission that the appellants stood sureties and undertook to ensure the appearance of the accused on each and every date of hearing in the case but they, being of the same tribe to which the accused belongs, connived with him and facilitated his absconsion. The accused being absconder and fugitive from law the sureties are not entitled to any leniency for the reduction of amount of surety bonds. The learned counsel for respondent-complainant placed reliance on Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and others (PLD 1998 SC 50), Muhammad Safeer v. Faqir Khan and 2 others (2000 SCM R 312) and an unreported case of this. Court titled Muhammad Iqbal v. Robkar-e- Adalat and another (Criminal Appeal No.26 of 1997 decided on 23-10-1997).
6. After hearing the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be stated that the trial Court as, well as the Shariat Court have confiscated the whole amount of Rs.10 lacs as undertaken by the appellants while furnishing their surety bonds. There seems to be no earthly reason for the reduction of amount of surety bonds as we. Have observed in so many cases that it has become a routine particularly in District Mirpur anti Bhimber that the accused after getting their release on bail usually make good their escape by absconding. Therefore, in our view the sureties do not deserve any leniency in the matter of confiscation of their surety bonds.
7. To have the survey of the case law it may be stated that in a case titled Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47) it was observed that a balance is to be kept into mind between undue leniency and undue severity as in the opinion of the learned Judges the sureties had been acting through mere benevolence on behalf of accused, therefore, forfeiture of bonds from Rs. 5 thousand to Rs. 1 thousand was reduced. However, the accused in the aforesaid case was involved in a petty crime of theft of a meager amount.
PLD 1998 SC 50) while distinguishing the authority reported as Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47) the following observations were made by the Supreme Court of Pakistan: .
"The above observations were made by Carnelius, C.J., more than three decades ago, since then there has been overall deterioration in all spheres of life. The crime rate has increased manifolds.
The criminal instinct/propensity has penetrated in all walks of life. Some of the personnel of the State functionaries/agencies which are entrusted with the duty to protect the life, property and honour of citizens, either themselves actively participate in the commission of the heinous crimes or they provide protective umbrella to the criminals. Their credibility has been denuded to the extent that the victims of the crimes do not approach them for their help or protection which they are otherwise entitled to as a matter of right under the Constitution."
2000 SCMR 312) it was observed by Supreme Court of Pakistan while relying upon the case of Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and others (PLD1998 SC 50) that the reduction of amount of bail bond was not in consonance with law. The forfeiture, therefore, should have been to the extent of full amount of bond.
Similarly in an unreported case of this Court titled Muhammad lqbal v. Robkar-e-Adalat and another (Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1997 decided on 23-10-1997) this Court ordered for the forfeiture of the entire amount of bail bond keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
8. It will not be out of place to mention here that the situation of law and order during the present days has deteriorated to a considerable extent. It has become the routine of the accused to jump of the bail and to abscond rather than facing their trials. Those accused who are involved in heinous offences their sureties do not deserve any leniency in the matter of forfeiture of their bail bonds. Thus, it is imperative that the Courts of law take stringent measures against those who stand sureties and undertake to produce the accused on each and every date of hearing, involved in heinous offences like murder etc., but later on expect that they may be shown indulgence. In such-like cases normally no leniency should be shown to the sureties its matter of reduction of the amount of their bail, bonds.
9. In the light of what has been stated above, finding no force in this appeal, the same stands dismissed.