ODER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Misc. Appln. No. S – 924 of 2017

Date Order with signature of Hon’ble Judge

Priority case

1. For orders on office objection at flag ‘A’

2. For hearing of main case

3. For hearing of M.A No.10128/2017 (Stay)

12.04.2019

Mr. Abdul Wahab Shaikh Advocate for the Applicant/Surety

Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

Irshad Ali Shah, J; The applicant by way of instant Criminal Miscellaneous Revision Application, has impugned the order dated 15.08.2017 of learned Additional Sessions Judge Ubauro, whereby he has been imposed the penalty of Rs.100,000/- for accused on account of breach of bail bond, who was facing trial before him for an offence punishable under Section23(1)(a) of Sindh Arms Act, 2013.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant/surety that the absence of the accused for which the surety bond executed by the applicant was not willful but on account of declaring him as ‘karo’. Subsequently he arrested and produced before the learned trial Court and has been acquitted of the charge vide order dated 30.03.2019. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned order as according to him the bail bond was executed by the applicant in favour of the accused on humanitarian ground and not for any monetary gains.

3. Learned DPG for the State has sought for dismissal of the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application by stating that the breach of bond is evident.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and learned DPG for the State and perused the record.

5. No doubt, the accused after his release on bail was attending the learned trial Court and subsequently abscond away but there could be no denial of the fact that such absconsion on the part of the accused was not willful but on account of declaring him as ‘karo’. The accused subsequently was arrested by the police due to the efforts of the applicant/surety and then was produced before the learned trial Court and has been acquitted of the charge. In that situation, it would be unjustified to maintain the impugned order of penalty upon the applicant. It is set‑aside.

6. Instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of in the above terms.

Judge

ARBROHI