1. ' BIN YAMIN, J.---This order will dispose of Criminal Revision Application No,42 of 2008 filed on behalf of Muhammad Irshad son of Khair Muhammad who offered surety of accused Muneer Ahmed in crime bearing Nos. 95 of 2006, 97 of 2006 and 101 of 2006 registered under section 392/34, P.P.C. At Defence P.S. And Clifton P.S. Karachi respectively.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/accused Muneer is involved in 5 Sessions cases No, (1), 226 of 2006, (2) 281 of 2006, (3) 243 of 2006, (4) 265 of 2006, (5) 223 of 2006. Bail in those cases has been granted to accused Munir and so also to co-accused Badaruddin by the learned II-ADJ South Karachi, total amounting to Rs,900,000 to each. That the accused is behind the bars since 2006. That applicant submitted his lease documents of Plot No,453, admeasuring 45 Sq. Yards. Gul Muhammad Lane, Lyari Quarters, Karachi as surety for accused Muneer, in Session Case No,281 of 2006 (documents are at page No,19) showing the valuation of property at Rs,15,00,000 (Rupees Fifteen lacs only). The learned IInd ADJ accepted the surety documents in Sessions case No,281 of 2006, for Rs,400,000 the original receipt of the said documents was submitted in other cases viz. Nos.226/2006, 243/2006, 265/2006, 223/2006, for accused Munir, but the learned IInd ADJ rejected the surety, in all the aforesaid cases vide order dated 27-3-2008, without cogent reasons. It is further stated that prior to furnishing surety for accused Munir, one Mr. Iqbal Masih son of Safdar Masih, owner of leased plot No,417/A, admeasuring 28.70 sq. Yards, Siraj Colony, Nazimabad, Karachi, stood surety for co-accused Badaruddin alias Majid Shah son of M. Bux alias Ismail. The documents of said Iqbal Masih were accepted for accused Badaruddin in all the aforesaid cases amounting to Rs,900,000. It is further stated that the impugned order dated 27-3-2008 is discriminatory and non-speaking and has been passed without applying judicial mind. That documents of the applicant are for plot admeasuring 45 sq. Yards, having double storey building constructed thereon, and its value is Rs,1500,000 (valuation certificates are at pages Nos.41-43) whereas total bail amount granted to accused Munir in all the cases is Rs,900,000. The property is leased out at annual land rent of Rs,13.50 in year 1975. That the surety documents submitted for other co-accused, admeasuring 28.70 sq. Yards only, leased out at annual rent Rs,0.31 in the year.
3. 1998. It is further stated that the annual rent deposited by the applicant is higher than that paid by surety for co-accused Badaruddin. Applicant has prayed as under:-- ' In view of above submission, it is very humbly and respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to set aside/recall the order dated 27-3-2008, and direct the respondent No,1, to accept the surety documents of applicant for accused Muneer son of Din Muhammad, in other four Sessions cases Nos. (1) 226/2006, (2) 243/2006, (3) 223/2006, (4) 265/2006.
4. ' Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned State Counsel and examined the material placed on record.
5. ' Learned counsel for applicant contended that order dated 27-3-2008 is not a speaking order, as no reasons are given for rejection of the surety paper, therefore on this sole ground the order is liable to be set aside/recalled. That documents of the applicant is with regard to area at 45 sq.
6. Yards having a double storey building built on it valuing at Rs,1500,000 whereas total bail granted to accused Munir is Rs,900,000 in all cases. Copies of valuation certificates are submitted herewith vide annexures H and H/I.
7. ' He further contended that the surety documents submitted for other co-accused to whom bail is granted for Rs,900,000 relates to a property having its area at 28.70 sq. Yards. That under the rule of consistency, applicants surety documents were required to have been accepted in all Sessions Cases Nos.226/2006, 243/2006, 265/2006, 223/2006. That non-acceptance of the surety documents in this case amounts to discrimination. He therefore requests for grant of this Revision application and direct the learned trial Court to accept the surety documents of the applicant/accused under the principle of consistency.
8. ' Learned State counsel has opposed this revision application and submitted that it is prerogative of the trial Court to accept any surety offered before it. He further submitted that as the surety in this case has already been furnished in some other cases on behalf of the applicant/accused therefore the court is right to accept the surety or reject therefore no exception can be taken to the order passed by learned trial Court. He requests for rejection of the instant revision application.
9. ' I have perused the case papers and impugned order passed by IVth A.D.J. Karachi, South rejecting the surety papers of the applicant/accused. The learned Judge has not given any reasons for rejecting the surety documents of the applicant/accused. Furthermore as the learned Judge has accepted the surety documents offered on behalf of the accused Badaruddin which were with regard to the land which's area is quite small in comparison to the area offered by the applicant/accused, therefore the action of the learned Judge amounts to discrimination. The leaned trial Court was required to have accepted the documents of the applicant/surety under the principle of consistency and by not doing so quite committed discrimination.
10. ' I therefore allow this revision application and direct the learned trial Court to accept the documents of surety Muhammad Irshad offered on behalf of the accused Munir as the value of the property offered as a surety is fixed at Rs,1500,000, whereas the surety in all cases amounts to Rs,900,000 only.
11. ' Criminal Revision Application No,42/2008 is disposed of as allowed.