1. ' MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- By this criminal revision application, the applicant Muhamad Sajjan has assailed the order, dated 21-6-2000 passed by the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (STA), Ghotki whereby he imposed the penalty upon the applicant/surety.
2. ' The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the application are that applicant stood surety for accused Sajjan Jagirani, who is facing trial in Special Case No, 16 of 1998 under section 13-D of Arms Ordinance before the learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Ghotki. The case arose out of F.I.R. No, 73 of 1998 of Police Station, Ghotki.
3. ' On 25-8-1999 accused was granted bail by the trial Court in the sum of Rs,50,000. On 31-8-1999, applicant stood surety for the accused and the accused after his release from Jail, did not turn up and never attended the trial Court.
4. ' In pursuance to notice, the applicant/ surety appeared before the trial Court on 31-5-2000 and sought time for producing the accused. The trial. Court granted time to the applicant/surety. On 21- 6-2000 the applicant/ surety appeared before the trial Court and stated that the accused has gone underground and he is unable to produce him before the Court. He requested for time to deposit the amount of surety bond.
5. ' The trial Court on the basis of the statement of applicant/surety imposed the penalty of Rs, 50,000 and granted him time to deposit the same on or before 10-8-2000.
6. ' We have heard Mr. Shamsuddin Kobhar, learned counsel for the applicant/ surety. He has relied upon the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267.
7. ' We have also heard Mr. Ghulam Dastagir Shahani, learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh appearing on behalf of the State. The latter opposes the prayer of the applicant/surety. He has placed reliance on the case of Abdul Latif v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1201.
8. ' The perusal of material placed on record shows that the applicant stood surety for the accused.
9. He failed to produce the accused.
10. ' The bail is nothing but change of custody. The accused was placed in custody of surety and he was responsible for production of accused in Court, if and when so ordered or required. In case of nonappearance or non-production of accused before the Court, surety would be liable to the penalty under law. The Court while imposing the penalty has to keep in mind the principle of undue leniency and undue severity.
11. In the present case, the conduct of the applicant/surety shows that he did not take any positive steps to produce the absconding accused before the Court.
12. ' In the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. The State (ibid) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant/surety, it was observed by the apex Court as under:--- "We may observe that it has now become common that the accused persons involved in heinous offences, if succeed, in obtaining bail, jump the bail bonds. To cheek the above tendency and to provide deterrent special provisions have been enacted and/or are being enacted in the special statutes prescribing the minimum amount of bail bond for example under section 5(7) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, it has been provided that the bail amount would not be less than twice of the amount involved in the commission of the offence.
13. Keeping in view the above bleak scenario which has emerged, with the passage of time on account of the lack of respect of the rule of law, and because of the unprecedented continuous steep inflationary tendency resulting in the loss of money value, the Courts should not show any undue leniency while forfeiting bail bond amount. Their approach should be dynamic and progressive-oriented with the desire to discourage the accused persons to jump bail bond. There is no legal requirement that full bail bond amount should not be forfeited, on the contrary, once an accused person jumps bail bond, the entire surety amount becomes liable to be forfeited in the absence of any mitigating circumstances."
14. ' Again in case of Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and 4 others PLD 1998 SC 50, it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that the discretion in reduction of the hail bonds to the extent of 1/4th or 1/5th is being taken in routine, although the power of determining the extent to which the penalty should be exacted should be reasonably exercised. In the context of deteriorating law and order situation prevalent in the country, the Courts should be conscious of the hazards of release of accused persons.
15. ' There are no mitigating circumstances for the reduction of amount of penalty. The accused is fugitive from law since September, 1999.
16. ' Consequently, we are of the considered view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
17. ' Resultantly, the criminal revision application stands dismissed alongwith listed miscellaneous application.
18. Revision application dismissed.