' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, prayed on behalf of the petitioner that this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner against the judgment/order, dated 26-5-2004 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,194 of 2003 (Nisar Ahmed Dina v. The State) and further be pleased to pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case may direct the authority not to arrest the petitioner until final decision of this petition."
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that petitioner along with five other persons is facing trial in pursuance of F.I.R. Lodged on 29th July, 2003 at Police Station F.I.A. (CBS-I, Karachi) registered on the complaint of Niaz Hussain Chohan, Manager A.B.L. Bombay Bazar, Karachi, wherein it is alleged that he along with other employees of the A.B.L. Has misappropriated/embezzled the amount of 126 cheques, liability of which approximately comes to Rs,20 million. It is stated that petitioner has been retired from service and is also disabled crippled person. He applied for grant of bail before arrest which was allowed vide judgment, dated 20th September, 2003 on medical ground and he was directed to furnish surety in the sum of Rs,20 million. Later on, he submitted an application for the reduction of surety amount and the learned trial Judge on 25th November, 2003 reduced the same from Rs,20 million to Rs,1,7,00,000 and P.R. In the like amount. Against this order petitioner preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Application before the High Court for further reduction of the amount of surety but the request so made by him was declined by the High Court by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there has been total six accused responsible for the commission of offence. Out of them, two have already been released by the police and presently only four persons are facing trial, therefore, the petitioner at the best could be held liable to the extent of his share, subject to establishing the case against him by the prosecution. He also stated that on account of ill health of the petitioner, he deserves to be released on bail bonds with reasonable amount in view of his ill health because if he is kept in jail, it would not serve any useful purpose.
4. Notice was issued to the State in response to which Mr. Azhar Nadeem Siddiqui for the State appeared and opposed the request of the petitioner as according to him under section 5(7) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as ("the Ordinance, 1984") an accused admitted to bail is required to furnish surety bond, equal to the amount involved in the case.
5. We have considered the arguments put forward by both the sides as well as the law on the subject. It is true that under section 5(7) of the Ordinance, 1984 an accused is required to furnish surety bond equal to the amount which has been misappropriated/embezzled but it does not mean that only one accused if he has to be released on bail will furnish the surety amount equal to the total misappropriated/embezzled amount. As in the instant case, admittedly, prosecution has alleged that there were six accused persons, therefore, proportionately dividing the liability, each accused shall be liable to the extent of about Rs,33 lacs. Thus, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, ill health of the petitioner and on human considerations, the surety amount being demanded from petitioner can be reduced to the extent of Rs,35 lacs, to meet the ends of justice.
' Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, surety amount fixed for release of petitioner on bail by the High Court in the sum of Rs,1,7,00,000(sic) is reduced to that of Rs,35 lacs with one surety and P.R.
Surety amount reduced.