Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD BOSTAN VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Saeeduzzaman SiddiquiRana M. Shamim,Jalaluddin Balouch
1988 M L D 320
1988 M L D 320
[Karachi]
Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J
MUHAMMAD BOSTAN‑‑Applicant
versus
THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Special Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 1987, decided on 12th April, 1987.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Bail‑‑Surety‑‑Reduction of surety amount‑‑Enlargement of accused on bail‑‑Object‑‑Bail was allowed to accused by trial Judge on condition of furnishing two sureties in sum of rupees one lac each but accused had not been able to provide two sureties and remained in jail for about four months‑‑Order of trial Judge modified to the extent that accused way asked to furnish one surety in sum of rupees one lac in form of cash or encashable security‑‑Held, discretion to enlarge accused person on bail not meant for penalizing him but only to ensure his attendance in case during trial.
Rana M. Shamim for Applicant.
Jalaluddin Balouch for State.
Date of hearing: 12th April, 1987.
ORDER The applicant was admitted to bail by the learned trial Judge on condition of two sureties in the sum of Rs. one lac each and PR in the like amount. The applicant has been in Jail for about 4 months and has not been able to arrange two sureties and has filed the present application for reduction of bail amount. Keeping in view the fact that the discretion to enlarge the accused persons on bail is not meant for penalizing him but only ensure his attendance in the case during the trial. I am inclined to modify the order of bail to the extent that instead of two sureties the applicant will furnish one surety in the sum of Rs. one lac and PR in the like amount but the surety will be either in the form of cash or in !he form of some encashable security duly assigned in the name of Nazir of the trial Court.
M.Y.H./M‑567/K
Order accordingly.