Sindh High Court
Khamiso and Others (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)
- Case
- Cr.Bail 782/2017
- Type
- Criminal Appellate Jurisdictions
- Judge
- Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
- Length
- 2 pages
Full judgment
Official copyORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT HYDERABAD
Cr. B.A. No.S- 782 of 2017
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE(S)
For orders on M.A- 6016 of 2020 (R/o surety).
Mr. Sanaullah Khoso, Advocate for applicant / surety.
Ms. Rameshan Oad, A.P.G.
Through listed application, applicant / surety seeks return of surety documents furnished by him on behalf of the accused before this Court, in the captioned bail application.
It appears from the record that applicants / accused were granted interim pre-arrest bail in Crime No.163/2017 of P.S Shahdadpur by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2017 subject to furnishing their solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- each and P.R Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court. Pursuant to such order, applicant / surety Khan Bahadur stood surety for the said accused and furnished surety papers. This fact is evident from the note of the Accountant of this Court, which is available on the back of aforementioned interim pre-arrest bail order.
It also appears from the record that said interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused was confirmed by this Court on 26.04.2018.
It is stated by learned counsel for applicant / surety that after grant of interim pre-arrest bail, accused persons were appearing before the trial Court (Judicial Magistrate-I, Shahdadpur), but as the complainant party did not appear before said Court for further proceeding, therefore, the case against accused was kept in abeyance on 30.07.2018 and since then, according to him, none from the complainant side is appearing before the trial Court; however, the applicant / surety is suffering as he has already submitted surety papers, which, in aforementioned circumstances, are no more required in the instant
case, hence further retention of same before this Court or the trial Court would not serve any purpose.
Learned A.P.G in the given circumstances has extended her no objection.
In view of above, listed application is allowed. Let surety papers be returned to the applicant / surety after due verification and identification.
JUDGE
S
Text extracted from the court's PDF and reflowed for reading. The court's official copy is authoritative.
Similar judgments
Closest in subject matter, from every court in the library.
- Sindh High Court · 17 Jan 2019 Rasheed Khan (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2020 SHC HYD 1875 · 7 Aug 2020 Abdul Rehman & Others (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2025 SHC SUK 1966 · 28 Jul 2025 Gulzar Ahmed Maitlo (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 22 Jan 2019 MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL & OTHERS (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2024 SHC KHI 1185 · 3 Jul 2024 Hina Siraj Manoo W/o Siraj Sadiq Manoo (Applicant) VS The State & another (Respondent)