KHAZIR HAYAT vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a criminal bail application where the surety sought the return of property documents submitted on behalf of the accused, Khizar Hayat, facing trial under sections 420, 468, 471 and 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether surety documents should continue to be retained indefinitely by the court when the trial proceedings have been kept in abeyance due to the non-appearance of the complainant and prosecution witnesses, and the accused has been directed to execute a fresh personal recognizance bond. The Sindh High Court held that it is unjustifiable to retain surety documents for an indefinite period under such circumstances, emphasizing that a surety assists in the administration of justice and should not face undue hardship or punishment. The court allowed the application and directed the Nazir of the court to return the surety documents after proper verification and identification.
- Can surety documents be retained indefinitely when trial proceedings are kept in abeyance?
- Whether a surety is entitled to the return of property documents upon the suspension of regular trial proceedings and submission of a P.R. bond by the accused?
- Should a surety suffer hardship or inconvenience when assisting the court in the administration of justice?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. ABDUL HADI KHOSO, J.---The learned counsel for the applicant surety states that Surety Muhammad Riaz has submitted property documents as surety for the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 (four lacs) for the accused Khizar Hayat in Crime No, 294 of 2006 under sections 420, 468, 471 and 467, P.P.C. Police Station Shah Lateef Town, Karachi in Criminal Bail Application No, 1274 of 2006, the case was challaned in the Court of Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi as Sessions Case No, 446 of 2006, the State v. Khizar Hayat son of Khadim Hussain. The learned counsel for the surety has produced certified true copy of the order dated 12-2-2010, passed by the Court of Ist Additional District and Sessions Judge, Malir, Karachi, whereby the case of the accused is kept in abeyance and the proceedings had been stopped and accused Khizar Hayat was directed to execute the P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 to appear as and when called by the Court when the complainant and eyewitnesses of the prosecution will be produced in the trial Court along with police papers. The learned counsel prayed for return of surety documents to the applicant. The learned counsel has further submitted that due to some domestic problems, financial constraints and other unavoidable circumstance he has to dispose of the said property to meet his necessities and requirements.
2. ' Ms. Rahat Ehsan, D.P.-G for the State has opposed the application.
3. ' I have taken notice of the circumstances that when the complainant and witnesses were not turning up to the trial Court and in the circumstances the trial Court has kept the case in abeyance and required the P.R. Bond from the accused for appearing in the Court as and when the complainant prosecution witnesses will appear in the Court, then it will not be justified to retain the documents of the surety for an indefinite period. Surety is rather assisting the Court in the administration of justice so he could not be punished and no any inconvenience and hardship should be created for the surety. In the interest of justice I allow this application, the Nazir of the Court is directed to return the surety documents to the surety Muhammad Riaz who had stood for accused Khizar Hayat in Criminal Bail Application No, 1274 of 2006 after proper verification and identification.