Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 PCRLJ 506
Court / Jurisdiction: Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
Year of Decision: 2023
Decision Date: 2023-03-02
Parties: Muhammad Ayub vs Robkar-e-Adalat through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur and another
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 2023-03-02, officially reported as 2025 PCRLJ 506. In this matter between Muhammad Ayub and Robkar-e-Adalat through Additional Advocate General, Mirpur and another, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
Case cited as 2025 PCRLJ 506
Court Name: Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Judge(s): Raza Ali Khan, Raja Saeed Akram Khan (C.J) Title:Muhammad Ayub vs Robkar-e-Adalat through Additional Advocate
General, Mirpur and another Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2022 Date of Judgment:2023-03-02 Reported As: 2025 PCRLJ 506 Result: Order accordingly Judgment
ORDER RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, CJ. 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 arguments 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
---
## Page 2
within a period of one month otherwise the law will be take its own course. The appeal stands disposed of.