2026 P Cr (PLP)

Muhammad Ayub Khan Tareen, J.

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following prayer: It is accordingly, respectfully prayed that the record from the court below may kindly be called for and after examining the same the impugned order dated 06.10.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Quetta/respondent No.3 may kindly be set aside and the criminal revision petition filed by the respondent No.1 may kindly be ordered to be dismissed with cost, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner got registered a criminal case, vide FIR No.182/2025, dated 17th July 2025, under section 489-F P.P.C, at P.S. City Quetta, wherein he alleged that he purchased landed property at Karachi (Sindh) from Abdul Rahman (respondent No.1) in consideration of Rs.9,73,50,000/-. Later on it transpired that respondent No.1 has no landed property at Karachi, thus, he approached the respondent No.1 and demanded return of his money, in response, the respondent No.1 issued three cheques detail is mentioned in the FIR, which the petitioner deposited in his account, but the said cheques were dishonoured due to non-availability of money in respondent s account, thereafter the respondent No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and finally he refused to return the money to the petitioner; hence, this case and arrest of the respondent No.1.

3. After completion of investigation, challan of the case was submitted and the respondent was remanded to judicial custody. The respondent applied for the concession of bail before the learned trial court/Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta (respondent No.2), which was granted vide order dated 1st October 2025, subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.9,73,50,000/- with PR of the like amount. Later on vide order of even date, the learned trial court reduced the amount of surety to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- cash and two personal surety bonds of Rs.2,00,00,000/- each.

4. That the respondent No.1 challenged the trial court s order in criminal revision petition. The learned revisional court (Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Quetta), vide order dated 6th October 2025, allowed the revision petition in the following terms: Submission advanced by the learned counsel is reasonable for the petitioner the purpose of surety is not to penalize party rather it is discretion of the court to ensure attendance of the accused and it is settled principle of law that discretion must be exercised judiciously. Therefore, instant revision petition is allowed and learned trial court i.e. Judicial Magistrate-I, Quetta is directed to accept Fardi surety of Rs.50,00,000/- instead of cash surety according to law. The remaining order of learned trial court with respect to two personal surety bonds of Rs.2,00,00,000/- each is intact. Hence, this petition with the prayer mentioned above.

5. We have given careful consideration to the arguments and gone through the relevant record. The trial court, granted bail to the respondent in the following terms: After hearing the arguments, I have reviewed the record, which reveals that the sections mentioned in the FIR are not bailable in nature but do not fall within the ambit of the prohibitory clause of section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C. Investigation has been completed, and the accused has been shifted to judicial custody. So, considering the circumstances and facts of the case to be of a further inquiry, the instant application is accepted, and the accused is granted bail in the sum of Rs. 9,73,50,000/- (Nine Crore Seventy Three Lacs and Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) and PR of the same amount to the satisfaction of this court. Although the revisional court reduced the surety to five million Fardi instead of cash, we believe that the rule requiring the surety amount to match the dishonored cheque cannot be applied universally in all cases. Moreover, the amount of surety should not be used to penalize the accused or deny bail in appropriate circumstances. The trial court, in matters of bail, particularly relating to section 489-F, P.P.C, if it concludes that the accused is entitled to bail, should not set the surety amount, as a general rule, equal to the dishonored cheques. Instead, it should be reasonable and based on the facts and circumstances of each case to ensure that the purpose of granting bail is not defeated.

6. While granting bail, setting the amount is at the court's discretion and may vary from case to case. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has defined judicial discretion as being to be exercised lawfully, reasonably, fairly, and transparently, with a focus on providing sound legal reasoning to support its decisions. The discretion is not an arbitrary or unchecked power; it must be exercised within the limits of the law and should not be used in a discriminatory, illegal, or malicious manner. The main purpose of releasing an accused on a surety bond is to ensure their appearance at each hearing before the trial court. The person acting as surety signs the bond for the required sum or amount and commits to bringing the accused to each date of hearing. Therefore, when dealing with surety cases, a balance must be maintained between excessive leniency, which could lead to abuse of the process and interference with the justice system in many cases, and excessive severity, which might discourage neighbors and friends from coming forward to provide bail for accused persons. The Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case of Dildar and another v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 47) has held as follows: The system of releasing accused person on bail has several aspects of importance to the administration of justice generally. It avoids anything in the nature of punishment in advance, since restraint upon liberty, even when applied for the purpose of ensuring that a case is duly enquired into and judged, necessarily involves loss of personal rights. At the same time, the release of accused persons on bail assists in the administration of justice by preventing overcrowding in the available spaces of imprisonment. Therefore, in dealing with cases of sureties who are in default, a balance has to be held between undue leniency, which might lead to abuse of the procedure and interference with the course of justice in a large number of cases, and on the other hand, undue sever to, which might lead to unwillingness on the part of neighbors and friends to come forward and give bail for the persons under accusation.

7. Therefore, we believe that the purpose of asking the accused to provide surety is not to punish him but to guarantee his attendance in court; thus, the amount of surety should be determined based on the nature of the offense and the means of the accused, so that the main goal of granting bail is not undermined, and the accused does not have to endure the suffering of jail unnecessarily for reasons beyond his control. In light of the above, the petition lacking merit is hereby dismissed in limine. MH/159/Bal. Petition dismissed.