ABDULLAH HAROON vs THE STATE and another
This criminal revision petition arises from an order passed by the Special Court (Offences in Banks), which granted bail to the petitioner, Abdullah Haroon, subject to furnishing security in the sum of ten million rupees with two sureties in the like amount. The petitioner, charged under sections 409, 468, and 477 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 5 and 6 of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984, challenged the quantum of the surety amount, arguing it was excessive and practically impossible for a student to fulfill, and requested that sureties be permitted from his home district of D.I. Khan. The core legal question was whether the surety amount imposed by the trial court was reasonable given the petitioner's circumstances. The Court held that while the alleged embezzlement involved twenty million rupees, a ten-million-rupee surety requirement was harsh and effectively denied the petitioner the benefit of bail. Consequently, the Court reduced the surety amount to five million rupees, emphasizing that bail conditions must be realistic and not punitive, and allowed the sureties to be local residents of D.I. Khan.
- Can a court reduce the amount of surety imposed as a condition for bail if the amount is found to be excessively harsh?
- Is it a valid ground for revision of a bail order that the surety amount is practically impossible for the accused to furnish?
- Does a court have the discretion to permit local sureties from the accused's home district rather than the district where the court is situated?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 477, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984
- Section 6, Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984
- Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDRI, J.---Petitioner Abdullah Haroon son of Ashiq Muhammad stands charged in case F.I.R. No,544 dated 9-12-2009 registered under sections 409/468/477, P.P.C. read with sections 5/6 Offences in Banks in Police Station Cantt, District D.I. Khan.
2. The accused petitioner preferred an application for bail before the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and accordingly the bail was allowed by holding that, "hence, his bail petition is allowed. In case the accused-petitioner provides security in a sum of Rs, One crore (ten millions) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court."
3. Dissatisfied from the impugned order dated 18-1-2010 the petitioner has come up with the instant criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. with the prayer that by modifying the impugned order, the sum of sureties i.e, ten millions may be decreased and the petitioner may be allowed to furnish his sureties having men of means from District D.I. Khan.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not involved in this case and the entire drama has been staged by his other brother namely Hassan Rasheed who remained Ex- Manager of Allied Bank Limited, Khalid Market Branch, D.I. Khan. It was further urged that the petitioner is a student and he is not aware of his Account bearing No,CD 2473-5 in the said Branch nor he has withdrawn any 'amount from the said Bank but even then he is ready to deposit the bail bond for the satisfaction of appearance in the Court but he is not able to find out reliable sureties of ways and means in Peshawar being the bona fide resident of District D.I. Khan.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Farooq Akhtar, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant urged that the petitioner has played active role in the commission of the offence and the bail order passed by Special Court concerned is according to subsection (7) of section 5 of the Statute Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 and the order passed is reasonable and does not call for any further amendment.
6. We have considered the submissions addressed at the bar by learned counsel for the parties and have reached to the conclusion that the petitioner is reportedly a student and he might not be in a position to arrange sureties with such a huge amount. Besides this, the perusal of F.I.R. shows that the embezzlement is to the extent of 20 million approximately and for the said embezzlement three accounts have been mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore; the release order on bail in the sum of Rupees ten million is harsh because nobody will be ready to stand surety for the petitioner against such a robust amount, therefore, in view of the circumstances of the case, we, by acceptance of the instant revision petition, reduce the surety amount from Rupees ten million to Rupees five million which would meet the ends of justice, with the directions to the petitioner to furnish the same in the Court of Special Judge, Peshawar. The sureties must be local (D.I. Khan), men of sufficient means and reliable.
Cited by 1 case
- SHAFQAT vs The STATE 2013 YLR 1311