ABDUL QADIR and another vs THE STATE

' Applicants Abdul Qadir and Muhammad Ibrahim, who were wanted in Crime No.4 of 1991, under section 156(1)(8)(89) and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969, had approached the Special Judge (Customs & Taxation) Karachi, seeking anticipatory bail. Both of them were granted pre-arrest bail in the sum of Rs.500,000 (Rs.Five lass only) each, and P.R. Bond in the like amount. The applicants have now approached this Court seeking reduction of the surety amount, which according to them is quite excessive.

2. I have heard Mrs.Navin Merchant, learned counsel for applicants and Mr.Nizar Ahmed, learned DA.-G. For State. The latter has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the applicants for reduction of the surety amount.

3. The order of learned Special Judge dated 17-3-1991, by which bail was granted to both these applicants makes it clear that there is no iota of evidence on record connecting them with this crime. I may borrow the relevant extract of the said order, which reads as follows:- "As regards applicants Abdul Qadir and Muhammad Ibrahim, it is noted that even the prosecution has admitted that no offending goods were recovered from the jeep in which they were travelling.

No evidence on the point of conspiracy between them and co-accused is, yet, available.

' At present the case of prosecution is only based on suspicion, conjectures and surmises. No material evidence is available to link them with this crime. Bail is also granted to applicants Abdul Qadir and Muhammad Ibrahim in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Five lacs) and P.R. Bond of the like amount for each."

4. The object of calling upon the accused to furnish the surety is not to penalise him, but to ensure his presence in Court and, therefore, the amount of surety must be fixed with due regard to the nature of the offence and the means of accused. In the case of (Swami) Chetanand v. Gurbakhsh Singh, reported in AIR 1930 Lahore 668, this question was examined and it was observe incidentally it may be mentioned that the Magistrate entirely ignored the principles underlying the fixing of the amount of security which an accused person can be called upon to furnish. It has more than once been laid down that the object is not to penalise the accused but to ensure his presence in Court and the amount of security must be fixed with due regard to the means of the accused and the nature of the offence."

5. It may be added that no needless impediment should be placed in the way of the accused for being admitted to bail, and he should be released on bail on such moderate surety as is suitable for his appearance before the Court pending trial. No doubt the applicants are involved in a very serious case of smuggling but as observed by the trial Court, there is hardly any evidence worthmentioning connecting them with this crime. In this view of the matter, the demand of such a heavy surety from the applicants would be shocking, which tantamounts to punishment.

6. Having regard to the above circumstances, 1 would accept this revision application by reducing the amount of bail bond to Rs.1,00,000 (Rs.One lac only) each with P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, this order is without prejudice to an application made on behalf of State for the enhancement of surety amount or cancellation of bail granted to applicants by the trial Court after some tangible evidence is collected connecting them with this crime.