📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
What was this case about?
A man named Mulazim Hussain had stood as a surety (guarantor) for an accused person named Faizan, who was facing a murder charge (Qatal-e-Amad) under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. When Faizan was granted bail, Hussain deposited savings certificates worth Rs. 100,000 as surety, promising to ensure Faizan appeared in court. However, after release, Faizan absconded and never returned to face trial.
The trial court forfeited the entire surety amount as a penalty for Hussain's failure to produce the accused. Hussain then approached the Sindh High Court, asking for the fine to be reduced, arguing he had acted purely out of goodwill (as Faizan was from his village) and received no financial benefit from standing surety.
What did the court decide?
The Sindh High Court rejected the request and upheld the full forfeiture of the surety amount. The court noted that once someone voluntarily agrees to be a surety, they take on a legal responsibility to ensure the accused's appearance in court — regardless of personal motives. Since Hussain failed to fulfill this obligation, he wasn't entitled to leniency.
Why does it matter?
The court relied on precedent from the Supreme Court, emphasizing that reducing surety amounts encourages accused persons to abscond and undermines the bail system. This case reinforces that sureties bear serious legal and financial responsibility, especially in serious criminal cases.
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2013 Cr.C . ( Karachi ) 261 Present: Farooq Ali Channa , J. MULAZIM HUSSAIN--Applicant versus STATE--Respondent Crl . Misc. Appln . No. 274 of 2012, decided on 28.1.2013. Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 561-A--Application for seeking reduction of fine amount--Applicant voluntarily stood surety and after releasing on bail accused was absconded--Trial Court forfeited the entire surety amount--Accused was involved in a heinous offence of Qatal -e- Amad which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Applicant claimed that he being co-villager furnished surety for absconding accused as such it was his liability to ensure the production of accused before the trial Court on each date of hearing for which he also executed surety bond but failed to honour the terms and conditions of his surety bond hence deserves no leniency--Application dismissed. [P. 262] A Mr. Muhammad Akbar Awan , Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Imtiaz Ali Jalbani , APG, Sindh for State. Date of hearing: 28.1.2013. Order Through the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Application, the applicant seeks reduction of fine amount imposed upon surety by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-South in Sessions Case No. 420/2011.
2. The facts of the case are that accused Faizan was involved in FIR No. 4/2011 PS Mehmoodabad under Section 302/34, PPC and was enlarged on bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount. The applicant voluntarily stood surety and deposited saving certificates, however after release on bail accused Faizan absconded away. The applicant in pursuance of notice under Section 514, Cr.P.C . furnished reply, the trial Court being dissatisfied with the reply ordered the forfeiture of entire surety amount and it's recovery by encashment of saving certificate and deposit of amount in Government treasury vide order dated 09.5.2012 which is impugned in this Criminal Miscellaneous Application.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that applicant had stood surety on humanitarian ground without any monitory benefits as the absconding accused was his co-villager. Learned counsel has further contended that the order of trial Court forfeiting the entire surety amount seems to be a harsh order. He requests for reduction of penalty amount imposed by the trial Court.
4. Learned APG has opposed the application relying upon the case reported as Saeed Akhtar V/S The State (2009 PSC 236) & Ghulam Dastagir & 3 others V/S The State (PLD 2011 SC 116) and Muhammad Aslam V/S The State (2004 SCMR 211), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has ordered the forfeiture of entire surety amount observing that reduction in surety amount increase the tradition and encourage the abscondence of accused after their release on bail.
5. Perusal of the record shows that accused Faizan was involved in a heinous offence of Qatal -e- Amad which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The applicant claims that he being co-villager furnished surety for absconding accused as such it was his liability to ensure the production of accused before the trial Court on each date of hearing for which he also executed surety bond but failed to honour the terms and conditions of his surety bond hence deserves no leniency. In view of the above facts and observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the above referred citations, there appears no merit in this application, the same is dismissed accordingly. (A.S.) Application dismissed