Legal Case Summary

Case Details
Case ID 159d7c64-59e2-4714-be85-ddc8e1bdf28c
Body View case body.
Case Number 2nd Crl. Revision Appln. No.S-7 of 2016
Decision Date Feb 29, 2016
Hearing Date
Decision The High Court dismissed the revision application filed by the applicant/surety, affirming the decision of the trial court which had imposed a fine of Rs.200,000 upon the surety due to the accused's abscondance after being released on bail. The court highlighted that the surety's conduct was unsatisfactory as he failed to present the accused after being notified, and later attempted to provide an explanation that the accused had been murdered. The court found no merit in the applicant's arguments for leniency and upheld the trial court's imposition of the penalty.
Summary This case revolves around the imposition of a penalty on a surety who failed to ensure the appearance of the accused in a criminal case after bail was granted. The applicant, MEHBOOB, stood surety for accused Khadim Chachar, who absconded after being released on bail. The trial court had issued a notice under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the surety after the accused was declared a proclaimed offender. Despite the applicant's claims of having acted on humanitarian grounds, the court upheld the penalty, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal obligations by sureties. This case raises critical issues about the responsibilities of sureties in criminal proceedings and the legal repercussions of their failure to ensure compliance by the accused. Keywords include 'Criminal Procedure Code', 'surety obligations', 'bail conditions', and 'legal responsibilities of sureties'.
Court Sindh High Court, Larkana Bench
Entities Involved Not available
Judges ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Lawyers Muhammad Ali Memon
Petitioners MEHBOOB
Respondents THE STATE
Citations 2016 SLD 2920, 2016 YLR 2648
Other Citations PLD 2011 SC 116, 2012 PCr.LJ 1936
Laws Involved Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Sections 514