1. Matter pertains to case F.I.R. No,134 dated 18-5-1998 registered at Police Station Warburton, District Sheikhupura, under sections 324, 148, 149, P.P.C. In this case, respondent No,1 Ghulam Rasool stood as a surety for accused Ashfaq Ahmad who was released on bail for an amount of Rs, 1,00 ,000 Later when the accused did not appear and the respondent No,1 could not produce him, his surety bond was forfeited in full by the trial Court vide its order dated 25-4-2001. When the matter was taken in revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 15-2-2002 reduced the penalty to half i,e, Rs,50,000. The complainant now has come to this Court through this writ petition assailing the orders passed in revision by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while stating that the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have upheld the order of the learned trial Court.
2. Admittedly, the respondent No,1 was not a relation of the accused and had stood as a surety as a gesture of benevolence. 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 feelings and invariably without any ambition for gaining of benefit, rather for mere benevolence.
3. 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 required to hold some sort of balance while determining to what extent a bond is to be forfeited. This Court is guided by the following authorities while deciding this matter:--
(i) Sardar Khan and others v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 447;
(ii) GhulamHaider v. KarimBakhsh PLD 1963 SC 47;
(iii) Muhammad Khan v. The State 1986 PCr.LJ 2028;
(iv) Bahadur Khan v. The State 1976 PCr.LJ 1283;
(v) Muhammad Safeei. v. Faqir Khan and 2 others 2000 SCM R 312;
(vi) Abdul Bari v. Malik Amir Jan and 4 others PLD 1998 SC 50;
(vii) ZeeshanKazmi v. The State PLD 1997 SC 267. It may be pointed out in the three authorities of the Supreme Court and; lastly mentioned, the sureties were relations of the accused, for whom they stood sureties in cases of heinous crime. This is not a murder case and even otherwise the surety to be furnished was on a higher side i,e, Rs,1,00,000. Under the circumstances of the case and after hearing both sides, this writ petition has no merits and it is dismissed in limine.