Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Bail Application No. 160 of 1970, decided on 18th May 1970.
----Ss. 498 & 499-Bail, grant of-Section 499 contemplates execution of bond and not cash deposit--Court cannot insist on deposit of cash as condition prece dent to grant of bail.
Mian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. State P L D 1963 S C 478; and
Lakhi Narayan Kundu v. The Crown P L D 1955 Dacca 84 rel.
Makhdoom Sharif for Applicant.
Nooruddin Sarki for the State.
Date of hearing: 18th May 1970.
The petitioner was arrested on 23-12-1969 on charge of theft of motor cars. He was challaned in five cases. He applied for bail in all the five cases and he was released by A. C. M. Court No. 24, Karachi. The amount of surety was fixed in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 in each case. One of the conditions, however, was that this amount had to be deposited in cash. The petitioner thereafter, moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi for reduction of the bail amount and to set aside the condition of cash deposit. The learned Sessions Judge declined the later request but reduced the cash amount to Rs. 2,000.00 in each case. Being aggrieved by this order dated 10-4-1970 of the learned Sessions Judge the petitioner has filed five bail applications, which 1 have treated as revision applications, and are being disposed of by this order.
2. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Vian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v. State (P L D 1963 S C 478), that imposition of such conditions while granting bail is not permissible under the law. Their Lordships in fact disagreed with the judgment in the case of Afadhukar Purshottam Nondkar v. Talab Haii Hussain (A I R. 1958 S C 376). Mr. Makhdum Sharif, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the case of Lakhi Narayan Kundu v. The Crown (P L D 1955 Dacca 84), and in particular to the following observations: -
"Section 499 contemplates the execution of a bond with sureties and not a cash deposit. A Magistrate has no power to require an accused person to deposit a sum of money in Court as surety for his attendance in Court at a given time."
3. I respectfully agree with these observations and in view of these two authorities both the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as of the Sessions Judge are obviously illegal as no cash surety could be insisted upon. I would accordingly revise the order in the following term
4. That the petitioner shall be released on bail in each case on his furnishing a separate surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000.0 (Rupees five thousand) -each and P. R. Bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. These revision applications are accordingly allowed.
Revision allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer