2011 PLP 1648 (YLR)
ASAD ULLAH KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1648 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Maqbool Baqar and Shahid Anwar Bajwa, JJ |
| Parties | ASAD ULLAH KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1648 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 1648 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Maqbool Baqar and Shahid Anwar Bajwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 1648 (YLR) (ASAD ULLAH KHAN — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 406/409/420/34
Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.5(7) [as amended by S.3 of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) (Amendment) Act (XVI of 1997)]
Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
Grant of bail subject to furnishing surety and also subject to deposit misappropriated amount
Special Court granted bail to accused subject to furnishing surety amount in the sum of Rs.23,00,000 and also subject to deposit of Rs.22,89,200 being the amount allegedly misappro-priated by the co-accused
In terms of S.5(7) of Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, though it was mandatory for the court granting bail to make it conditional to furnishing a surety not less than twice the amount embezzled, but word "twice" vide amendment effected through Amending Act, 1997, had been deleted; it was in circumstances not necessary that the surety amount should be twice the amount embezzled
Bail order was amended by withdrawing the condition of deposit of Rs.22,89,200, required through impugned order; and instead accused would deposit the amount of Rs.23,00,000 as surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Amir Mansoob Qureshi for Applicant. Ashique Raza, D.A.-G. along with Dhani Bux, Inspector FIA, CBC, Karachi.
Judgment & Decree
Through this Criminal Revision Application the applicant, accused in F.I.R. No.8/2009 of Police Station FIA CBC II/Karachi, under sections 406/409/420/34, P.P.C., has assailed the order dated 23-2-2011 passed by the learned Special Court (Offences in Respect of Banks) Karachi, whereby the applicant has been granted bail but subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.23,00,000-00, and also subject to deposit of Rs.22,89,200-00 being the amount allegedly misappropriated by the co-accused in the court. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order for deposit of the amount has perhaps been passed on account of misconception about the relevant law, as though in terms of subsection (7) of section 5 of the Banking Offences (Offences in Respect of Banks) Ordinance, 1984, it was mandatory for the court granting bail to make it conditional to furnishing a surety not less than twice the amount embezzled, however, the word "twice", vide amendment effected through Act XVI of 1997, has been deleted and now it is not necessary that the surety amount should be twice the amount embezzled. He has placed before us the relevant Ordinance and referred to the aforesaid provision, which now reads as follows:-- "Section 5(7)
Where an accused person is released on bail, the amount of bail shall be fixed having regard to the gravity of the charge against such person and where the charge specifies any amount in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, shall not be less than the said amount." The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the above amendment it is now no more required that the surety amount be double of the embezzled amount. In view of the above, Mr. Ashique Raza, learned D.A.-G. concedes to the request. We therefore, by consent amend the bail order by withdrawing the condition of deposit of Rs.22,89,200-00 required through impugned order and instead the petitioner shall now deposit the amount of Rs.23,00,000-00 with PR Bond in the like amount as surety to the satisfaction of trial Court, which amount may be invested in some profit earning government scheme. H.B.T./A-40/K Order accordingly.