2022 PLP 24 (YLRN)

ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.

Through this criminal miscellaneous application, applicant Nasir Shah son of Zahir Shah has prayed the following relief: "It is, therefore, prayed on behalf of the accused above named that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the present application on humanitarian grounds and reduce the surety amount from Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lacs only) to Rs.5,00,000/- as it is in the larger interest of justice, equity and fair administration as well as according to law."

2. Facts necessary for disposal of this application are that accused was granted post arrest bail by trial Court in Crime No.361/2018 registered under section 489-F, P.P.C. of Police Station Site-B in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and PR bond in the like amount and subsequently the said surety amount was reduced by trial Court to Rs.20,00,000/- with PR bond in the like amount, but according to learned counsel for applicant, yet the applicant could not arrange the requisite surety for his release on account of poverty.

3. Mr. Mehar Qadir Khan, learned counsel for applicant has contended that the applicant is too poor to arrange for his heavy surety amount, with the result that he is still in custody, although the concession of bail was extended to him as far back as 19.12.2018 and prayed that surety amount may be reduced to some reasonable extent in support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the case reported as (1) Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others (2013 SCMR 51), (2) Abdul Qadir v. The State (PLD 1991 Karachi 353) and (3) Kamal v. The State (1992 PCr.LJ 1152), and has contended that the object of calling upon the accused to furnish the surety is not to penalize him but to ensure his presence before the trial Court.

4. Learned Additional Prosecutor General has opposed this application on the ground that applicant is involved in number of criminal cases of like nature and in case if the surety amount is reduced, certainly, he will repeat the offence.

5. Heard the parties' advocates and perused the record.

6. It is an admitted position that in criminal administration of justice, each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances and courts are required to exercise jurisdiction independently, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of The State v. Haji Kabeer Khan reported as PLD 2005 SC 364 and Muhammad Faiz alias Bhoora v. The State and another reported as 2015 SCMR 655.

7. It is also an admitted fact that present accused was granted bail after arrest by trial Court in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and PR bond in the like amount. Subsequently, on application of the applicant/ accused, the said surety amount was reduced from Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- for his release but as per record, the accused yet could not secure the requisite surety for his release.

8. The object to calling upon the accused to furnish surety is not to penalize him but to ensure his presence in Court, therefore, the amount of surety must be fixed with regard to the nature of the offence and means of the accused. The accused although having been allowed the bail by the trial Court in the month of December 2018, but still he has not been able to arrange such huge surety for his release despite of expiry of about 04 months.

9. I have gone through the case of Mian Allah Ditta v. The State and others reported as 2013 SCMR

51. In this case law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted bail to the accused Mian Allah Ditta in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, although, in the cited case, the subject cheque which was bounced of Rs.25,00,000/-. I have also gone through the cases of Muhammad Naveed Sheikh and another v. The State reported as PLD 2013 Sindh 68 and Muhammad Shafiq Shah and 2 others v. The State reported as 1993 PCr.LJ

483. In these authorities, surety to the accused was also reduced to a reasonable extent. Thus it appears that it is not necessary that amount of surety should be equivalent to the cheque amount mentioned in the cheque bounced. During the course of arguments, I have specifically asked the question to learned Additional Prosecutor General for explanation or to controvert the above stated position, he has no satisfactory answer with him.

10. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that a reasonable cause has been made out for further reduction of surety by the applicant so that the very object of granting bail may not be defeated and the applicant may not suffer agony of jail unnecessarily for the reasons beyond his control. In the circumstances, I hereby reduce the surety amount from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to be furnished before the trial Court to its satisfaction. With the above observation, criminal miscellaneous application in hand is allowed in the above terms. MH/133/Isl. Application allowed.