MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus STATE

ORDER

Parties learned counsel heard.

2. This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. praying that the amount of surety bond fixed by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore, while allowing bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. -No.22/92 dated 10-5-1992 under section 420/409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered with F.IA. Crimes Circle, Lahore, be reduced being unreasonable and excessive which has resulted in non-release of the petitioner on bail inasmuch as that the petitioner is behind the bars for about one year without trial. Relevant portion of the impugned order, dated 3-5-1993 is reproduced as under:--

"The accused/petitioner has confessed his guilt and has promised that he would deposit the whole money, if he be enlarged on bail. Under the circumstances, the accused/petitioner is enlarged on interim bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.15 lacs to the satisfaction of this Court, with the direction that he must deposit Rs.4 lacs within three months from today and the remaining amount he may deposit in instalments, as the same would be fixed after his depositing Rs.4 lacs as stated above. The accused/petitioner has got no objection stating that he would deposit it within 3 months and the first instalment of 1.25 lacs, he will deposit on 25-5-1993 and thus the remaining amount he will deposit on the same date of every month and after depositing Rs.4 lacs he would deposit the remaining amount in instalments as would be fixed by this Court."

3. It may be mentioned that the petitioner is accused of having embezzled Rs.8,72,722 while posted as Special Ticket Examiner at Lahore in the year 1990-91. The petitioner was arrested on 25-5-1992. He was allowed bail by the learned Special Judge on 22-11-1992 subject to his furnishing bank guarantee of the embezzled amount (Rs.8,72,722). The petitioner could not furnish the bank guarantee asked for by the Court, so he again applied for relaxing condition to furnish bank guarantee. The learned Court modified the bail granting order vide impugned order dated 3-5-1993, reproduced in para. 2 above. One Haji Abdur Rahim stood surety for the petitioner and executed a bond accordingly as a result whereof the petitioner was released on 3-5-1993 but was again arrested on 25-5-1993 as aforesaid surety got himself discharged from the bond executed by him on 27-4-1993.

4. Admittedly the petitioner is in jail for the last about one year without trial and challan has not so far been submitted in Court. Mumtaz Ahmad S.I. F.IA. Circle, Lahore who is present in Court says that although challan is complete but it is lying with Director-General, F.IA., Islamabad, awaiting grant of sanction for prosecution by the competent authority. He is unable to say as to when the sanction for prosecution would be available or the trial would commence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken exception to the observation made by the learned Special Judge in his impugned order, dated 3-5-1993 i.e. that "the accused/petitioner has confessed his guilt and has promised that he would deposit the whole money, if he be enlarged on bail". He contended that as a matter of fact the surety bond (mark "A") executed by the accused/petitioner was to the effect that in case of conviction he would pay the allegedly embezzled amount of Rs.8,72,722 from his gratuity and G.P. Fund etc. Having perused the record I have found that the grievance of the learned counsel is well-founded. I am tempted to observe that the learned Special Court should have taken immaculate care while making observations in bail orders particularly affecting the guilt/innocence of the accused which must be according to the record. The petitioner is in jail without trial for the last one year. What to talk of conclusion of the trial its commencement is not within sight in the near future. It is stated that co-accused of the petitioner had been allowed bail on furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.l lac. In these circumstances, the amount of surety bond fixed by the learned Special Judge and the precondition of depositing the embezzled amount, imposed upon the petitioner for confirming his interim bail, in the circumstances of the case and keeping in view his status in life, is harsh, excessive and unreasonable. Consequently, I hereby reduce the amount of surety bond under section 498, Cr.P.C. read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C. from Rs.15 lacs to Rs.l lac and also delete the precondition requiring the petitioner to deposit the allegedly embezzled amount in the Government treasury for confirmation of his bail. In result the petitioner is directed to be released subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.l lac to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner stands disposed of accordingly.

H.B.T./M-1187/L Order accordingly.