Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD alias MANDO MALLAH VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice S. Ali Aslam Jafri and Muhammad Afzal SoomroShafi Muhammad Memon,Habib Ahmed
2004 P Cr
62004 P Cr. L J 2006
[Karachi]
Before S. Ali Aslam Jafri and Muhammad Afzal Soomro, JJ
MUHAMMAD alias MANDO MALLAH---Applicant
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Cr. Bail Appln. No.57 of 2004 (Hyd.) Crl. Bail Appln. No.634 of 2004(Khi.), decided on 13th July, 2004.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 497, 513 & 514---Bail, grant of---Conversion of order furnishing security to that of furnishing surety---Accused, who was granted bail subject to furnishing security in the sum of Rs.1,00,000, had prayed for conversion of order from security to surety contending that he was a poor man and unable to manage depositing of such huge amount of security---State Counsel conceded and had recorded no objection if accused was directed to furnish surety by deposit of title deeds instead of security-- Court being competent to convert nature of security and ask for surety, accepted application of accused and directed him to furnish surety accordingly.
Khadim Hussain v. The State PLD 2004 Kar. 191 ref.
Shafi Muhammad Memon for Applicant.
Habib Ahmed, Asstt. A.-G. for the State.
ORDER
Through this application, applicant Muhammad alias Mando who was granted bail by the learned trial Court subject to furnishing security, in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 has prayed for conversion of the order from security to surety. It has been urged that applicant is a poor person and unable to manage the depositing of such huge amount of Rs.1,00,000. It is further contended that the Court is competent to convert the nature of the security and can ask for surety. Reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Khadim Hussain v. The State PLD 2004 Kar. 191, wherein it has been held that if the surety) furnishes title documents of landed property, the same can be accepted as security by the trial Court within the meaning of section 51(2) of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997.
In this view of the matter Mr. Habib Ahmed learned A.A.-G. has rightly conceded and recorded no objection if the applicant is directed to furnish surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 by deposit of title deeds instead of security.
Order accordingly.
H.B.T./M-118/K Application accepted.