ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Crl. Revn. Appln.  No.S-44    of  2012

DATE OF HEARING

ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

13.11.2012.

1. For Katcha Peshi.

2. For hearing of M.A. No.2119/2012.

Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro, advocate for the applicant/surety.

Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, State Counsel.

                             -------------------

                   Applicant/surety Ghulam Nabi Tallani through this revision application has challenged the order dated 24.8.2012 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad in Sessions Case No.821/2008, re State v/s Tharo Tallani & others.

                   Concise facts leading to the filing of the instant criminal revision are that applicant Ghulam Nabi Tallani stood surety for accused Aijaz alias Ajoo alias Ayoob Tallani on 24.11.2010.  Bail was granted by the trial Court to accused Aijaz alias Ajoo alias Ayoob Tallani on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (five lacs) and P.R bond in the like amount in crime No.94/2008, registered at Police Station Saddar Jacobabad, under Sections 302, 34, PPC. 

                   After grant of bail to accused, applicant stood surety, accused was released on bail and thereafter absconded away.  Surety could not produce the accused.  Notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C was issued to the surety.  Surety failed to produce the accused.  Learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad forfeited the entire bond of surety and imposed full fine amount of Rs.500,000/- and with direction to deposit the same within 15 days and in case of default the same shall be recovered according to law.  Above order of trial Court is impugned before this Court.

                   At the very outset, learned Counsel for the applicant/surety instead of arguing this revision application on merits requested for moderate reduction in the forfeiture amount of surety on the grounds that applicant had stood surety on humanitarian grounds and had gained no monetary benefit in this regard.  It is further submitted that surety is a poor person and has large family having no sufficient income source.   Learned Counsel relied upon the case of Abdul Sattar v. The State, reported as 2010 Y L R 1946.

                   Mr. Naimatullah Bhurgri, learned State Counsel, recorded no objection if fine amount imposed upon surety by the trial Court is reduced to some reasonable extent.

                   I have carefully heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned order.

                   In my considered opinion, imposing whole fine upon the surety without any proof of malafide or personal gain was not justified in this case.  No doubt, there is no legal embargo that amount of bail bond in full cannot be forfeited, but still approach of the Court should be dynamic and progressive oriented while imposing the entire fine upon the surety, else no one will stand surety for any accused.  Nature of the case, efforts made by the surety to produce the accused and financial position of surety should be taken into consideration.  Balance should be kept between undue severity and undue leniency at the time of passing the order. 

                   Thus, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, order of the trial Court is modified and fine of Rs.500,000/- is reduced to Rs.300,000/-.  Revision is disposed of accordingly.  The surety shall deposit Rs.300,000/- before the trial Court within the period of one month, else the same shall be recovered by the trial Court  in accordance with law. 

                                                                                                JUDGE                                                                                                   

Qazi Tahir/