ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Revision Application No.S-70 of 2021

Date	Order with signature of Judge

1. For Orders on office objection.

2. For hearing of main case.

20-01-2022.

Mr. Imdad Ali Malik, advocate for the applicant.

Mr. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, Deputy Prosecutor General.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Through the instant Crl. Revision Application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 15-06-2021 passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC Ghotki in Sessions Case No. 296/2013, arisen out of Crime No. 69/2013, u/s 452, 324, 436, 114, 337H(ii), 147, 337F(iii), 148, 149 PPC registered at PS A-Section Ghotki, whereby he has imposed full surety amount of Rs.50,000/- for each accused upon the applicant as penalty, hence this Crl. Revision Application.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after grant of pre-arrest bail to accused Mairaj and Muhammad Ramzan by learned IInd Additional Session Judge Ghotki, the applicant stood surety on their behalf and filed her affidavit along with documents/papers of immoveable property; that after furnishing surety, the accused persons absconded away and subsequently due to intervention of Nekmards of the locality, they have surrendered and joined the trial Court; that case has been disposed of on the basis of compromise application filed by the parties, but learned trial Court has not considered such aspect and impose full surety amount upon the applicant, hence he prays for setting aside the impugned order and release of surety amount.

Learned DPG for the State has supported the impugned order and opposed for return of surety amount.

I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Perusal of record shows that the applicant stood surety on behalf of accused Mairaj and Muhammad Ramzan in Crime No. 69/2013 of PS A-Section Ghotki and after furnishing the surety, the accused persons absconded away, however, later-on they surrendered before the trial Court after grant of pre-arrest bail, where, Sessions Case No. 296/2013 Re. The State Vs. Maqsood Ahmed Tagar and others, against them was disposed of by way of filing compromise application vide order dated 10-02-2021. It has come on the surface that case has been disposed of on the basis of compromise application filed by the parties and all the accused have been acquitted, but this aspect is not considered by learned trial Court.

In view of above, the impugned order dated 15-06-2021 passed by learned trial Court i.e 1^st Additional Sessions Judge (MCTC) Ghotki is hereby set aside by allowing the instant Crl. Revision Application with direction to learned trial Court to return the full surety amount to the applicant after proper identification and verification.

The instant Crl. Revision Application stands disposed of.

Judge

Nasim/P.A