Muhammad Ayub Versus Robkar-e-Adalat through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur
The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court directing him to deposit a surety amount of Rs. 1,00,000 in both Robkars after the acquittal appeals of the accused for whom he stood surety were dismissed. The core legal question concerned the liability of the surety upon the conclusion of the criminal appeals and the discretion of the court regarding the reduction of the surety amount. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held, taking a lenient view in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances, that the total surety amount should be reduced and fixed at Rs. 100,000, payable within one month. The key principle laid down is that the apex court possesses the discretionary power to mitigate and reduce surety bond liabilities under appropriate circumstances.
- Whether a surety is automatically discharged from liability upon the conclusion of criminal appeals?
- Does the court have the power to reduce a surety amount imposed on a guarantor?
- What is the effect of the dismissal of an appeal on the obligation of a surety standing for the attendance of an accused?
1. Order
2. Raja Saeed Akram Khan, C.J .--- The appellant, who stood surety for the accused Muhammad Ishaq, has filed this appeal against the impugned order of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court (High Court) dated 14.11.2022, whereby he has been directed to deposit the surety amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in both the Robkar within a period of one month.
3. Mr. Imtiaz Hussain Raja, Advocate the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant stated that two appeals were pending before the High Court against the acquittal order passed by the trial Court. The appellant stood surety for Muhammad Ishaq. The appeals remained pending before the High Court for ten years and finally both the appeals have been dismissed, thus, the appellant automatically stood discharged of his liability. He further added that the appellant was surety for attendance of single accused but he has been ordered to deposit the surety amount in two appeals. At the end of day, he stated that the appellant has suffered a lot and this Court is empowered to reduce the surety amount, hence, the same be reduced.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General, although refuted the arugments of learned counsel for the appellant on merits, however, he admitted that the Court has the power of reduce the surety amount.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, while taking the lenient view we are intended to reduce the surety amount and fix the same to Rs. 100,000/- (total). The appellant is directed to deposit the amount within a period of one month otherwise the law will be take its own course. The appeal stands disposed of.
6. MQ/9/SC(AJ&K) Order accordingly..