1. ' Applicant stood surety for accused Zulfiqar Ali who was granted bail by the trial Court on 15-1-1996 in. Crime No. 53 of 1993 of Police Station Rustam for an offence punishable under section 302, P.P.C.
2. The trial Court granted bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount. The applicant furnished surety for the said amount. Thereafter accused Zulfiqar Ali was released. The accused attended the trial Court but he remained absent on 10-7-1997, his bail was cancelled and surety was forfeited and trial Court issued NBWs and notice to thesurety as required under section 514, Cr.P.C. The NBWs were returned unexecuted but the notice upon applicant was "Served who appeared in the Court on 15-8-1997 and moved an application for extension of time to produce the accused. The trial Court initiated the proceedings against the accused under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. And declared the accused as proclaimed offender and till today the accused is absconding.
3. The applicant after service of notice engaged his counsel and filed reply to the notice on 6-1-2000.
4. The trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties directed the applicant to pay full amount of Rs.100,000 within 30 days. The impugned order passed by the trial Court was challenged before this Court through Revision Application No. S-10 of 2002 which was set aside by an order, dated 19-1-2002 and directed the trial Court to pass fresh order while keeping in view the order passed on 28-6-1997. The trial Court after considering all the grounds urged by the learned counsel has passed an order, dated 22-6-2002 which has been challenged before this Court.
5. ' Mr. Mazher All Sidduqi submits that the applicant is poor and on humanitarian grounds the reduction in the surety amount be considered.
6. ' Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Kourejo learned State counsel has opposed this revision application as the accused Zulfiquar Ali was serving in Police Department and was gunman of DSP, Training School, Larkana and his whereabouts are not known and trial Court has declared him as proclaimed offender. Mr. Kourejo has relied upon the case of Zeeshan Kazimi v. The State (PLD 1997 SC 406).
7. ' I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the respective parties and examined the material placed on the record and the case-law cited by learned State counsel. Accused Zulfigar Ali was released by the trial Court on 15-1-1996 and applicant (Chibhar) furnished the surety in the sum of Rs.100,000. The accused was released by the Jail Authorities but he remained absent in the trial Court on 10-7-1997. Consequently bail of the accused was cancelled and bail bond were forfeited. The trial Court issued NBWs against the accused while notice to the applicant/surety under section 514, Cr.P.C. The trial Court declared the accused as proclaimed offender on 19-5-1999 and upto this time he has not surrendered in the Court being Police Constable and bodyguard of DSP, Training School Larkana who is transferred to Karachi. The applicant sought time from the trial Court since 1997 but upto passing of the order he has failed to produce the accused. In view of the case-law of the Hon'ble apex Court dilated in the case of Abdul Bari v. The State (PLD 1998 SC 50), Muhammad Safeer v. Fakeer Khan and 2 others (2000 SCM R 312) and Jamroz Khan v. The State (1990 SCM R 1313). In the above mentioned judgments, it has been dilated that thereare no grounds to justify any leniency in reduction of the forfeiture of the bail bond of the full amount furnished by the petitioner. Learned counsel states that the petitioner stood surety who was neighbour and thus it was for no gain and disappearance of the accused wA not with the connivance of the applicant.
8. The Hon'ble apex Court has also discussed the case of Dildar v. The State.In case of Abdul Bari v.
9. Malik Ameer Jan. The plea of the learned counsel that no monetary gain was involved and the sureties offered security/surety on humanitarian ground could not be accepted as Court was not taken into confidence as regards the essential factual position e.g. Cause of reason for furnishing surety on account of long time acquaintance of other relationship, if any, existing between the sureties and the accused. The accused being the member of law-enforcing Agency has misused the concession of bail since, 1997 and applicant/accused sought several dates of hearing for production of the accused but upto this time accused is absconding who is declared as proclaimed offender. For the reasons given above, I agree that forfeiture of NBW amount of bail bond executed by the respondent is justified. The revision application is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to initiate further proceedings for affecting the forfeited amount.
10. ' However, at this stage Mr. Siddiqui has prayed that the applicant shall deposit the forfeited amount in the trial Court in two instalments and that such directions be issued. The applicant is directed to deposit the said amount in two instalmeni's one by 30th October, 2003 and other one on 29th November.