1992 P Cr (PLP)

"This order will dispose of the application moved under section 498, Cr.P.C. praying for the reduction of the surety. This Court vide order, dated 4-5-1992 directed the release of the applicant/accused but subject to his, furnishing two sureties each in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount. The prayer has been made in the application for reduction of surety amount. I have heard the learned Advocate for the accused/applicant and the learned A.P.P. Mr. Sardar Khan. In view of the grounds mentioned in the application the mode of two sureties is changed to one surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bonds in the like amount. M/s. Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Akbar, the brother and relation respectively, of the accused/applicants are also present and stated that they are willing and prepared to take' every care of the accused/applicant. They should execute the bond that the accused will not in any way inflict injury to himself or any other person!

3. The applicant could not arrange for the required surety and he has now approached this Court with' the prayer that the surety amount may be reduced to a reasonable extent.

4. I have heard Mr. Jawaid Haider Kazm4 learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Abdul Hakeem Bijarani, learned AA:G. for State. The latter has opposed the prayer of the applicant.

5. Subsection (1) of section 466, Cr.P.C., whereunder the release of the applicant on security is directed provides as follows:- "Whenever an accused person is found to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be whether the case is one in which bail m9y be taken or not, may release him on sufficient security being given that he shall be properly taken care of and shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and for his appearance when required before the Magistrate or Court or such officer as the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf."

6. It is thus apparent that a simple surety bond for the appearance of the accused before the Court is altogether different from a bond obtained in terms of an order under subsection (1) of section 466, Cr.P.C., whereunder the surety binds himself

(i) to take care of the lunatic properly; (ii) to take care of the lunatic to prevent him from doing injury to himself; (iii) to take care of the .lunatic from doing injury to any other person, and (iv) to produce him before the Magistrate or Court or such officer as the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf.

7. Having regard to the above conditions laid down in subsection (1) of section 466, Cr.P.C., and keeping in view the gravity of the offence with which the applicant is charged, I am satisfied that the demand of the security in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. one lac) is proper.

8. A point which was touched upon during the course of arguments may now be dealt with. It is contended that the applicant who is a resident of the Province of Punjab, can offer surety only from that Province, which may not be acceptable by the learned Sessions Judge. This is purely a hypothetical question. Rule 18, Part G, Chapter V of the Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circulars is clear on this point. The order of Abdul Hayee Kureshi, C.J. (as he then was) dated 18-11-1985, passed in Muhammad Iqbal v. The State Cr. Misc. Application No.J-1406 of 1985 is again self-explanatory, is reproduced below "The accused/ applicant states that he has a surety, who belongs to Chakwal. If such surety is found to be solvent, it would be open to the trial Court to accept the same."

9. In the result the application made under section 498, Cr.P.C. is dismissed. N.H.Q./A-1241/K Petition dismissed.