Mira Khan son of Aslam Khan and Raees Khan son of Mosam Khan, petitioners, both residents of Muhammadzai, District Kohat, have filed instant Criminal Revision No,96 of 1998, challenging the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kohat dated 29-10-1998, forfeiting the surety bonds and directing the petitioners to deposit Rs,10,000 each in the State Treasury, as penalty.
2. Shortly narrated the facts are that the petitioners had stood sureties for one Ismail Khan son of Nawab Khan, an Afghan Refugee, involved in case F.I.R. No,169 dated 6-5-1992 registered at Police Station Jangle Khel Kohat, for offences under section 13 West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 read with Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Ismail accused was tried by learned Judicial Magistrate, Kohat and having been found guilty was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 22 days' S.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,500, vide. Order dated 29-11-1997. Feeling aggrieved the State filed a revision petition under section 439-A, Cr.P.C. Against the above said conviction order. Ismail Khan accused did not appear in the revisional Court and the petitioners were given notice under section 514, Cr.P.C. Resultantly the impugned order was passed.
3. I have heard at length Haji M. Zahir Shah, Advocate for the petitioners and Malik Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the State.
4. A perusal of the bail bonds would reveal that the petitioners had stood sureties for an accused person Ismail Khan, to the effect that he will appear in the trial Court during the trial proceedings.
After the conviction and sentence of Ismail Khan, the petitioners were absolved of their legal obligation, from the responsibility of the surety bond submitted by them to the trial Court in the above mentioned case. The petitioners had submitted no bail bond in the revision petition of the State against Ismail Khan accused and they had taken no responsibility at any stage that they will produce the accused after his conviction and sentence by the trial Court in a revision filed by the State and as such the impugned order has been passed in total disregard to the terms of bail bonds. Mir Mubarak Ali and another v. The State 1997 SCM R 571. It needs no reiteration that the liability of the surety should be determined on the terms of the bond itself, and for that purpose the bond should be construed strictly as held in the State v. Abdur Rehman PLD 1965 (W.P.) Karachi 90.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the criminal revision is accepted and the impugned order dated 29-10-1998 is set aside.