Pakistan Case Law
2011 MLD 940

IMDAD HUSSAIN vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2011 MLD 940
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Bail Application No,913 and M.A. No,5935 of 2010
Date2011-01-24
Judge(s)Abdul Hadi Khoso
ResultOrder accordingly
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from an application filed on behalf of the applicant, Imdad Hussain, who had earlier been granted bail by the court but remained incarcerated due to his inability to arrange the required surety amount of Rs. 100,000 owing to extreme poverty. The core legal question addressed is whether the court can reduce the quantum of surety previously fixed in a bail order when the accused is unable to furnish it due to indigency, thereby frustrating the relief of bail. The Sindh High Court held that considering the circumstances, poverty, and financial position of the accused, the surety amount should be reduced to prevent defeating the purpose of the bail already granted on merits. The court accordingly modified its earlier bail order by reducing the surety amount from Rs. 100,000 to Rs. 25,000. The key principle laid down is that the court possesses the discretion to adjust and reduce surety amounts keeping in view the financial hardship and position of an accused person to ensure that the relief of bail is not rendered ineffective.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the court reduce the surety amount previously fixed in a bail order if the accused is unable to furnish it due to poverty?
  • Whether the purpose of granting bail is defeated when an excessive surety amount keeps an indigent accused confined in jail?
reduction of surety amountbailindigent accusedquantum of suretypost-arrest bail

ORDER

1. ' ABDUL HADI KHOSO, J.---The applicant namely Imdad Hussain son of Muhammad Panjal was granted bail vide order dated 4-10-2010 by this Court on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 and P.R Bond in the like amount, but the applicant being poor person could not arrange the surety amount. The learned counsel for the applicant has filed application along with affidavit stating therein that the applicant belongs to a very much poor family and has no any extra resource, he is the only bread earner of his family. Since the grant of bail i.e, 4-10-2010 is lying in the jail and is not able to arrange the surety for the amount of Rs,1,00,000 for his release.

2. ' Ms. Seema Zaidi, A.P.-G. For the state has very frankly stated that the applicant is really a poor person therefore since long time is confined in jail, and is unable to arrange the surety amount to the extent of Rs,1,00,000. As the applicant was granted bail while considering the merits of the case learned A.P.-G. States that if the surety amount is not reduced the purpose of granting bail will be defeated. She has no objection to the reduction of surety amount.

3. ' Keeping in view the circumstances and grounds mentioned in the application and affidavit of learned counsel for the applicant the surety A amount is reduced from Rs,1,00,000 to Rs, 25,000, as it is purely the discretion of the. Court to keep the circumstances and position of the accused in mind while passing order regarding surety amount. The bail order dated 4-1-2010 passed by this Court is modified to the extent of surety amount from Rs,1,00,000 to Rs,25,000.

4. ' Application is disposed of in the above terms.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.