2000 P Cr (PLP)

These are five criminal miscellaneous applications filed on behalf of Moeen Akhtar accused, who is common in all the applications. According to the learned counsel for the applicant five Sessions Cases namely, 56 of 1996, 57 of 1996, 59 of 1996, 617 of 1996 and 448 of 1997, are pending before the Court of IXth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South wherein bail has been granted to the accused by the Trial Court in the sum of Rs.50,000 in all the cases except in Sessions Case No.448 of 1997 wherein bail is granted to the accused in the sum of Rs.1,00,

000. The learned counsel states that property documents were submitted before the Trial Court as surety but it refused to accept the same on the ground that the same have already been accepted as surety in Sessions Cases Nos.58 of 1996 and 60 of 1996 in which bail was granted to the same accused in the sum of Rs.50,000 each, hence these applications. The contention of the learned counsel is that the valuation of the said property has already been submitted before the Court and since the cases are pending before the same Court where the property documents have already been submitted, and the value of the property is such that it covers the total amount of surety in all the cases, the Court should have accepted the same. He has relied on order passed in an unreported case being Criminal Bail No. 1076 of 1991 Nasir Javed v. State, dated 2-4-1992 wherein a Division Bench of this Court has granted such request. The order is reproduced as under:-- "This application has been filed by the petitioner, with the request that he has to furnish surety in four cases, whereas the surety has only one property but this property covers the valuation of the surety amount in all the four cases. The petitioner is at liberty to offer the above property as surety in one case and then obtain a certificate from the Court with regard to the amount of surety and valuation of the property and then present the same before the other Courts accordingly. This application is disposed of accordingly." According to the counsel appearing for the State only those documents are sent for verification which are proper lease documents and are genuine and if this statement is accepted then it means that the property documents of the relevant property mentioned hereinabove are genuine and the lease documents are there on record. The counsel for the applicant has given Sessions Cases numbers of five cases plus two cases wherein the property has already been accepted as surety and the total amount in the last two cases is Rs.1,00,

000. I have heard both the counsel and have perused the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court. Since the principle that a common property in cases pending before the same Court be accepted as surety if the valuation of the said property covers the surety amount in all cases has been accepted and relief was granted in this regard by a Division Bench of this Court, I am bound by such order. Order accordingly. However, it will be entirely to the discretion of the trial Court to call for and verify all the pending cases in respect of the said accused and assess the bail amounts in all such cases and if the valuation is satisfactory and equivalent to the amounts of bail bonds granted in each case, the appropriate orders may be passed. N.H.Q./M-461/K Bail granted.