ABDUL JABBAR Versus THE STATE

ORDER

1. This order will dispose of applications under section 498, Cr.P.C. submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant/accused praying for reduction of surety amount. In the supporting affidavit filed by the father of the accused it is stated that he is an old man aged about 70 years and has no source of income. He has also rid means to arrange the surety documents for the amount fixed by the Court, which according to him is heavy. Notice of this application was given to the learned State Counsel.

2. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record.

3. The accused who is involved in Crimes‑Nos.10 of 1995, 23 of 1995 and 28 of 1995 (Police Station Darkhshan) 34 of 1995 (Police Station Civil Lines) 35 of 1995 (Police Station Darkhshan) 52'of 1995 (Police Station Clifton), 52 of 19,95 (Police Station Darkhshan) and 57 of 1995 (Police Station Clifton) for the offences under section 20 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was granted bail by this Court on 12‑12‑1996 and was directed to be released on furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs.5,00,000' with P.R. Bonds in the like amount. Since he could not arrange the required' surety, therefore, application for reduction of surety amount was moved. That was allowed and the amount was reduced to 2,00,000 on 26‑5 1997. Yet another application for reduction of surety amount with supporting affidavit was submitted and that was allowed on 26‑9‑1997, and the surety amount was further reduced from Rs.2,00,000 to Rs.1,00,000. Now this is the third application praying for further reduction of the surety amount.

4. After having gone through the record I am of the view that the applicant is not in a position to furnish surety as, ordered by this Court and this is the reason that in, spite of grant of bail on 12‑12‑1996 he is in judicial custody. In my humble view once an accused is granted bail and. In spite of all possible effort she is unable to furnish surety in the required amount then keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case a reasonable reduction in the surety amount may be made so that the applicant/accused may not suffer unnecessarily for reasons beyond his control. Just as bail is not to be withheld as punishment likewise after the bail is granted since the liberty of the accused is involved, therefore, if reasonable grounds are disclosed then the surety amount may be reduced having due regard to the facts of the case so that the very object of granting bail is not defeated.

5. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant that in other cases the learned trial Court has granted him bail on his furnishing of surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 and he is involved in 15 cases. Accordingly in the interest of justice, the surety amount is reduced from Rs.1,00,000 to Rs.35,000 (Rs. Thirty‑five thousand) each and P.R. Bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Miscellaneous Applications Nos.41 of 1998, 42 of 1998, 43 of 1998, 44 of 1998, 45 of 1998, 46 of 1998, 47 of 1998 and 48 of 1998 stand disposed of.

6. H.B.T./A‑181/K Order accordingly.