O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Revision Application No.S-79 of 2011
|
Date |
Order with signature of the Judge |
1. For orders on office objection flag ‘A’
2. For Katcha Peshi
25.7.2012
Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, advocate for the applicant.
Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, State counsel.
--------
Naimatullah Phulpoto, J:- Applicant Ali Gohar Tangwani stood surety for accused Umedo Banglani in a case registered against him and others at Police Station Thul vide crime No.68/2002 under section 302, 324, 34, PPC. Bail was granted to accused Umedo by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad in the sum of Rs.300,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount. After grant of bail accused Umedo was released thereafter he did not appear in the Court. Notice under section 514, Cr.P.C was issued to the surety and he furnished reply that he has made efforts to produce the accused but he has failed and further stated that he had stood surety for accused in the name of Holy Quran purely on humanitarian grounds. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad ordered forfeiture of full amount of bail bond Rs.300,000/- vide order dated 24.4.2010. Thereafter applicant/surety has approached this Court. Notice was issued to learned Additional A.G.
Mr. Athar Abbas Solangi, learned advocate for applicant/surety has argued that the applicant stood surety for accused Umedo purely on humanitarian grounds. He had no relationship with the accused but after grant of bail accused Umedo jumped bail and surety has failed to produce him before the Court. Learned advocate for the applicant/surety prayed for taking lenient view in reduction of the surety amount.
Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, State counsel opposed the criminal revision application and argued that learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, by observing all the legal formalities has passed the impugned order regarding forfeiture of full amount of the bail bond. He has further submitted that it is a murder case and the surety has failed to produce accused Umedo before the Court resultantly proceedings have been delayed. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Zeeshan Kazmi v. State PLD 1997 SC 267 and Abdul Bari v. Amir Jan PLD 1998 SC 50.
In order to appreciate the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties order dated 24.4.2010 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, is reproduced as under:-
“Heard Mr.Kamran Ahmed Solangi advocate for surety, learned ADPP for the State and perused the record.
The applicant had undertaken to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three Lacs) on failure of accused Umedo Bangulani to appear on any date of hearing while standing his surety before this Court. The accused has absconded away. The applicant prays for vacating the notice under section 514, Cr.P.C on the ground that he had stood surety purely on humanitarian ground in view of Holy Quran brought by relatives of accused who is either missing or kidnapped or killed. This plea of surety appears to be managed one in view of non-filing his affidavit and copy of FIR if lodged in connection with the alleged missing/kidnapping/killing of accused as such it shows that the applicant/surety has taken this false plea in order to save his skin otherwise there is no substance in it. The applicant/surety has also not even produced the copy of any newspaper in which such news is published. The applicant/surety is bound to pay the same amount after the absconsion of accused when there is nothing on record to show that the surety had stood surety on humanitarian ground without deriving and monetary or other benefit. Accordingly, the surety is penalized with direction to deposit the aforesaid amount within one week hereof failing which the penalized amount be recovered as land revenue arrears.”
From the perusal of the order it transpires that learned trial Court by observing all the legal formalities and providing opportunity to the surety of hearing and keeping in view legal and factual position ordered the forfeiture of the full amount of bail bond of Rs.300,000/-. Not a single circumstance has been brought on record by the surety to show the serious efforts made by him for production of the accused before the Court. Accused Umedo is still absconding. Now-a-days it is growing tendency that accused after grant of bail usually abscond away resultantly delay is caused in the disposal of the cases. Such tendency needs to be curbed. No ground for taking the lenient view has been brought on record. No illegality or procedural defect in the impugned order has been pointed out. Therefore, while respectfully relying upon above I hold that order of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, dated 24.4.2010 is based upon sound reasons, so far its correctness, legality and propriety is concerned it requires no interference. Resultantly, I find no merit in the above Revision Application and it is dismissed.
Judge