2014 PLP 486 (MLD)
IRFAN YAQOOB — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2014 PLP 486 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IRFAN YAQOOB — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 486 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 486 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 486 (MLD) (IRFAN YAQOOB — Applicant Versus The STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---Through this Criminal Revision Application, Mr. Waqar Shah, Advocate has simply prayed for reduction of quantum of surety amount from Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac only) to Rs.600,000 (Rupees six lac only).
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497, 498 & 499
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 468 & 471
Cheating, forgery, using as genuine a forged document
Accused was granted bail by the Magistrate subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,00,000, which subsequently was reduced from Rs.20,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000
Accused was unable to furnish surety in said amount and prayed for reasonable reduction in surety amount
Once accused was granted bail and despite possible efforts he was unable to furnish surety in the required amount, then keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case a reasonable reduction in the surety amount could be made, so that accused should not suffer unnecessarily for reasons beyond his control
Bail was not to be withheld as a punishment; after the bail was granted, the question of liberty of accused was involved
In the present case, reasonable grounds had been disclosed by accused in application and in his affidavit
Quantum of surety, in circumstances was reduced from Rs.10,00,000 to Rs.600,000.
S. 439
Revisional jurisdiction of High Court
Scope
Such jurisdiction was very wide and it was to be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise, were brought to the notice of the court; and where the question of hardship was involved, such jurisdiction was to be exercised to prevent gross miscarriage of justice.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.
Through this Criminal Revision Application, Mr. Waqar Shah, Advocate has simply prayed for reduction of quantum of surety amount from Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac only) to Rs.600,000 (Rupees six lac only). From perusal of record, it appears that accused Irfan Yaqoob alias Danish son of Muhammad Yaqoob has been granted bail by the learned XIIth Judicial Magistrate Karachi East on 15-3-2013 in Criminal Case No.3078 of 2012, F.I.R. No.63 of 2012 under sections 420/468/ 471, P.P.C., Police Station Soldier Bazar in the sum of Rs.20,00,
000. The said surety amount was reduced from Rs.20,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 by the learned District and Sessions Judge Karachi East vide his order dated 16.8.2013 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.1403 of 2013. Now again through this Criminal Revision Application, he wants reduction of surety amount as according to the learned counsel for the applicant, the accused is behind the bar for more than one year outside from Karachi and never produced for trial. He further submitted that the accused has no means to furnish surety of huge amount as he is poor and unable to arrange the huge amount of surety for his release. Learned D.P.G. has opposed the request of learned counsel for the applicant. However, the complainant who is present in court has stated that it is up to the court to pass appropriate order under the circumstances of the case. I have gone through the record available before me and come to the conclusion that in this matter admittedly the accused was granted bail by the learned XIIth Judicial Magistrate Karachi East subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,00,000 which was subsequently reduced from Rs.20,00,000 to Rs.10,00,000 by the learned District and Sessions Judge Karachi East but he could not arrange the same because of poverty and he is behind the bars for the last one year as stated in the Memo of Application which was supported by an affidavit. In my view once the accused was granted bail and in spite of possible efforts he was unable to furnish surety in the required amount, then keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case a reasonable reduction in the surety amount could be made so that the accused should not suffer unnecessarily for reasons beyond his control. The scope of revision jurisdiction of this court is very wide and it is to be exercised whenever facts calling for its exercise are brought to the notice of the court and where the question of hardship is involved as happened in this case, such jurisdiction is to be exercised to prevent the gross miscarriage of justice. Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment likewise after the bail is granted, the question of liberty of accused is involved. In the present case reasonable grounds have been disclosed by the applicant in the application and in his affidavit. In such state of affairs and while relying on the case-law reported in 1993 PCr.LJ 483 (Karachi) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ SHAH and 2 others v. THE STATE), the quantum of surety is therefore, reduced from Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac only) to Rs.600,000 (Rupees six lac only). With this observation, the Criminal Revision Application is disposed off in the above terms. HBT/I-23/K Order accordingly.