MUHAMMAD SHARIF and anothers vs THE STATE
The petitioner, who stood as surety for an accused person who subsequently absconded pending trial, sought leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reduced the forfeited surety amount from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 20,000. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the discretion exercised in reducing the forfeited bond amount and whether further reduction was warranted given the duration of the accused's abscondence and the delay in filing the petition. The Supreme Court held that appropriate relief had already been granted and the discretion by the High Court was exercised on sound principles, noting additionally that the petition was barred by 128 days. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that no further interference was called for in the matter of surety bond forfeiture.
- Whether the discretion exercised in reducing a forfeited surety amount can be interfered with when based on sound principles?
- Does the abscondence of an accused person justify the forfeiture of a surety bond?
- Whether a petition filed with a delay of 128 days against the reduction of a forfeited surety amount is maintainable?
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN; J.---The petitioner, a surety for an accused who absconded pending trial seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court whereby reduction in the forfeited amount was ordered from Rs.50,000 to 20,000 and not more.
2. Admittedly the petitioner stood surety in the sum of rupees fifty thousand. Admittedly the accused for whom he stood surety remained in abscondence from 7-12-1991 to 8-8-1992, when he was arrested by chance.
3. In this background already appropriate relief has been afforded by the impugned order.
4. No further action is called for. The discretion has been exercised on sound principles. The petitioner is also shown to be barred by 128 days.
' Leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 2 cases
- HIDAYAT ULLAH Versus State 2019 YLRN 10
- ZEESHAN KAZMI Versus THE STATE 1997 PLD 267