' The revision petitioner has assailed the order, dated 4-4-2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lodhran whereby full amount of surety bonds in case of each petitioner was forfeited.
2. Facts in brief are that Muhammad Rafique accused in criminal case registered vide F.I.R. No,623 of 1998 was allowed bail by the High Court subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1 lac with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
3. The petitioners stood as sureties in respect of the said Muhammad Rafique accused and had executed surety bonds in that behalf with an undertaking that they would be responsible for producing the said accused before the learned trial Court on each date of hearing till the conclusion of the trial. The said accused who was facing murder charge absconded at the conclusion of the trial whereupon his bail was cancelled. Both the petitioners were served with the requisite show-cause notice as to why the amount of bonds should not be recovered from them.
They submitted their replies and after hearing their counsel the learned trial Court forfeited the bonds and ordered for the recovery of the amount of bonds.
4. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are poor persons and are unable to pay the amount in question; that the accused was their neighbour and they stood sureties on account of benevolence, therefore, imposition of full penalty was improper, unjust and unreasonable; that no inquiry was made to ascertain if the petitioners had any direct - interest with the accused or that absconcion of the accused was with their conniva'hce; that while imposing penalty a balance should have been made between undue leniency and undue severity which was not made while imposing penalty of the full amount of the bonds. It was prayed that the amount of penalty be reduced.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and have also perused the impugned order.
6. The petitioners stood sureties for the accused who was facing murder charge and who intentionally absconded at the stage when the trial was nearing the conclusion. The petitioners were given sufficient time by the trial Court to produce the accused who had absconded: the petitioners not only failed to discharge their obligation of producing the accused before the trial Court but expressed their inability to produce him as is evident from their replies submitted in response to the notice under section 514, Cr.P.C.
7. If the petitioners were poor persons and their financial position was not sound. They should not have undertaken the liability which they were unable to discharge. It is not their case that at the time of furnishing the bonds they were financially well-off and it was thereafter that their financial position became weak.
8. For whatever reasons the liability was undertaken by them they were legally bound to fulfil their obligation under the bail bonds furnished by them.
9. Since the petitioners had themselves undertaken the liability of producing the accused on every date and in case of default had undertaken to pay Rs,1,00,000 each by way of penalty, it does not lie in their mouth to say now that they are poor and destitute persons and cannot afford to pay that much amount.
10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is not only correcto but is also proper and legal.
11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, the trial Court was legally competent to forfeit the bonds and had the discretion to impose the penalty to the extent of the amount mentioned in the bonds. The impugned order further shows that the amount of penalty was not imposed arbitrarily but while exercising its discretion, cogent reasons have been given for imposing full amount of penalty.
12. It was not necessary for the trial Court to have made any inquiry in the matter for ascertaining if the petitioners had any direct interest with the accused or the accused had absconded with their connivance or not.
13. Even if it be deemed that the accused had not absconded with the connivance of the petitioners, in that event also the petitioners were legally bound to produce the accused before the Court and in default to fulfil their obligation under the bail bonds furnished by them. The criminal revision petition, is devoid of any merit. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.