2021 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD SALEEM JESSAR, J.

Through this Criminal Revision Application applicant Jamil Soomro has assailed the Order dated 15.10.2019 passed by learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Mohammad Khan, in Bail Application No.51/2019 whereby he, while granting bail to the accused / applicant, directed him to furnish solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) in the shape of Special Saving Certificate and P.R. bond in the like amount.

2. The prayer made by the applicant in the instant Criminal Revision Application is that instead of furnishing surety in the shape of Special Saving Certificate, he may be allowed to furnish surety in the shape of papers/documents relating to agriculture land, situated at Deh Saeed Pur, Taluka Bulri Shah Karim.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned D.P.G. appearing for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is very poor and he is not in a position to arrange cash to purchase special saving certificate for furnishing the same as surety for his release. According to him, Superior Courts have held that lower courts should not insist upon furnishing cash security, rather should accept the solvent surety which is available with the accused/applicant. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the cases of Mst. Sher Bano and another v. The State, and The State v. Mohammad Hasham Babar reported in PLD 1989 Karachi 602 and PLD 1997 Lahore 605 respectively.

5. In the cited case of Mst. Sher Bano (supra), this Court held as under;- "

3. Section 499, Cr.P.C. makes a mention of acceptance of sufficient surety and does not give power to the Court to reject a surety merely on the ground that the surely appears to be of a poor lady. The Court is bound to accept surety, provided she is solvent, reliable and identified. Likewise section 499, Cr.P.C. contemplates execution of bond with sureties and not a cash deposit. The case reported as 'Lakhi Narayan Kunde v. The Crown PLD 1955 Dacca 84, is clear on this point."

6. Likewise, in the case of Mohammad Hasham Babar (supra), it was held by honourable Lahore High Court as under;- "The provision was enacted in the interests of persons who, because they may be strangers in the locality or for some other reason, are not in a position to arrange for bail or able to offer sureties. In the case of these persons if they offer a cash deposit, the Court is allowed in its discretion to accept that deposit in lieu of a bond; but neither section 499 nor section 513 of the Code contains anything which authorizes a Magistrate of his own accord to insist on the deposit of a sum of money as surety in the place of a bond. Such demand for cash surety is illegal."

7. In view of above legal position, the impugned order is patently illegal and derogatory of the aforesaid well settled principle of law. Consequently, by a short order dated 01.11.2019, instant Cr. Revision Application was allowed and the impugned order, to the extent of depositing of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) in the shape of special saving certificates only, was set aside and the applicant was ordered to be released on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

8. Above are the reasons for the said short order.

9. Approved for reporting. SA/J-13/Sindh Application allowed.