2025 P Cr (PLP)
Muhammad Ayub — Appellant Versus Robkar-e-Adalat through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur
| Citation | 2025 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Muhammad Ayub — Appellant Versus Robkar-e-Adalat through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 P Cr (PLP) (Muhammad Ayub — Appellant Versus Robkar-e-Adalat through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Robkar-e-Adalat through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur
- Imtiaz Hussain Raja, Advocate for Appellant.
- Ch. Shakeel Zaman, Additional Advocate General for Respondents.
- 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.
- 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.
Headnotes / Summary
S.499
Scope
Two appeals were pending before the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court against the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court
Said appeals remained pending before the High Court for ten years and finally both the appeals were dismissed
Appellant, who statedly stood surety for an accused, filed appeal against the order of the High Court, whereby he had been directed to deposit the surety amount of Rs.1,00,000/-in both the Robkars within a period of one month
Plea of the appellant was that on disposal of cases(appeals) he automatically stood discharged of his liability and that he was surety for attendance of single accused but he had been ordered to deposit the surety amount in two appeals
Admittedly, the Court had the power to reduce the surety amount
In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, while taking a lenient view, the Supreme Court reduced the surety amount and fixed the same at Rs.100,000/- (total) and directed the appellant to deposit the said amount within a period of one month, otherwise the law would take its own course
Judgment & Decree
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. 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. 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. 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. MQ/9/SC(AJ&K) Order accordingly..