Muhammad Noman vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Muhammad Noman VS State S.514---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 161, 409, 420, 467, 468 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Forfeiture of surety amount---Scope---Accused was granted bail in a criminal case against a surety of Rs. 100,000/= furnished by applicant---Bail was cancelled due to the absence of accused---Notice under S.514, Cr.P.C, was issued---Despite the applicant's reply, the Trial Court forfeited of the entire surety amount---Validity---Factual matrix of the case revealed that the default was neither willful nor contumacious---Record indicated that the accused did present himself in Court on the relevant date and remained present until approximately 01:00 p.m.---Accused's inability to mark attendance was attributable to the unavailability of the Presiding Officer, a circumstance beyond his control---Accused's subsequent departure at 01:15 p.m., while perhaps not ideal, was explained by his state of being unwell and observing a fast---Crucially, this was not a case of the accused absconding or showing a blatant disregarded for the Court's authority---Accused promptly secured pre-arrest bail from the Court and presented himself before the Trial Court at the next opportunity, demonstrating his continued intent to abide by the judicial process---In such a scenario, the failure to mark attendance on a single occasion, for the reasons stated, constituted a technical and venial breach at best---Court's decision to dismiss the application for condonation of absence, cancel the bail and consequently forfeit the entire surety bond was adisproportionately severe response---Law envisioned a graduated approach, where the nature of the breach was commensurate with the penalty imposed---Minor breach called for a minor penalty, not the extreme step of full forfeiture---Power to forfeit a surety bond under S.514, Cr.P.C, was indeed discretionary, but such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily or punitively---Objective of taking a surety was to secure the attendance of the accused, not to generate revenue for the State or to inflict a harsh penalty for a minor or explained lapse---Impugned order dated 15.05.2023, whereby the entire surety amount of Rs.100,000/- was forfeited, could not be sustained in the eyes of the law as the same was passed in a hurried manner, without adequate consideration of the mitigating circumstances and thus amounted to an improper exercise of judicial discretion---Thus, it appeared that the surety was cancelled harshly and the surety, who stands as a guarantor, was not to be punished severely without there being extraordinary circumstances justifying such a drastic measure---No suchextraordinary circumstances existed in the present case---Therefore, while the Trial Court was not entirely unjustified in taking note of the breach, however the punishment of full forfeiture was excessive---Consequently, the application was allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

Muhammad Noman vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 665 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ