MUHAMMAD RASHID and 2 others vs THE STATE and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by sureties challenging a High Court order regarding the forfeiture and recovery of surety amounts in a narcotics case. The petitioners sought to challenge the forfeiture, arguing that the terms of the surety bonds implied only joint liability, which would limit their individual financial exposure. The core legal question was whether the language used in the surety bonds created joint or several liability for the sureties. Upon examination, the Court determined that the Urdu terminology used in the bonds translated to 'severally,' meaning each surety was independently liable for the full amount, in addition to being jointly liable. The Court found that the High Court had already exercised discretion by reducing the penalty amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 40,000 per surety. Finding no merit in the arguments for further leniency or a different interpretation of the bond terms, the Supreme Court refused the leave to appeal, affirming the principle that surety bonds can impose both joint and several liability.
- Does the use of specific terminology in a surety bond create joint or several liability for the sureties?
- Can a surety be held independently liable for the full amount of a forfeited bail bond?
- Is a surety entitled to leniency regarding the forfeiture amount if the High Court has already exercised discretion in reducing it?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the sureties for the appearance of the accused in a case of Narcotics against the dismissal of their Revision by the High Court regarding forfeiture and recovery of the surety amount, which however was reduced from Rs, 50,000 each to Rs,40,000 each.
2. ' Learned counsel has taken us through the bail-surety bonds and has argued that the words "URDU TEXT" written in the surety bonds with respect to the responsibility of joint sureties mean that all of them shall jointly be responsible to pay the surety amount.
3. After some arguments the learned counsel could not press the point any further when he discovered that the word "URDU TEXT" when translated into English means severally. And if so construed each would be separately responsible for the forfeiture and the payment of the surety amount independently of the other surety's liability. They will also be jointly liable for this amount.
4. ' He, next relying on the case of Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 Supreme Court 47), contended that the petitioners deserve leniency. The learned Judge in the High Court gave some benefit to the petitioners by reducing the amount from Rs, 50,000 each to Rs, 40,000 each. Beyond that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no help to them.
5. Leave to appeal, accordingly is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE 1999 YLR 1932
- ZEESHAN KAZMI Versus THE STATE 1997 PLD 267
- Soofi MUHAMMAD SHAFI BAIG vs ROBKAREADALT through STATE 1995 P Cr. L J 399