Law: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1898

Section: 435,173,514

Law: Arms Ordinance, 1965

Section: 13(2)(a)

Summary of the Case: Surety Forfeiture

This criminal revision was filed by Kameer Khan under Section 435 Cr.P.C. to challenge the orders dated 07.12.2020, 25.01.2021, and 10.11.2021, which directed him (as a surety) to pay a penalty of Rs. 100,000 due to the alleged non-appearance of the accused Aamir Hayat in FIR No. 160/2019 under Section 13(2)(a) of the Arms Ordinance, 1965.

However, the record showed that Aamir Hayat was appearing before the same magistrate in another case (FIR No. 139/2019) during the same period, and had even been granted bail. This contradiction was overlooked by the magistrate who imposed the penalty on the surety, which the court found unjustified and contrary to law.

The High Court held that once the accused surrenders or appears before court, the surety's liability ceases, and penalizing them becomes illegal. The court relied on precedents including 2023 YLR 684 and 2000 YLR 2676 to highlight that bail ensures liberty, and sureties often act from goodwill, not for profit.