MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN SIKANDRI, J.---Petitioner Abdullah Haroon son of Ashiq Muhammad stands charged in case F.I.R. No,544 dated 9-12-2009 registered under sections 409/468/477, P.P.C. read with sections 5/6 Offences in Banks in Police Station Cantt, District D.I. Khan.
2. The accused petitioner preferred an application for bail before the Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) N.-W.F.P., Peshawar and accordingly the bail was allowed by holding that, "hence, his bail petition is allowed. In case the accused-petitioner provides security in a sum of Rs, One crore (ten millions) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court."
3. Dissatisfied from the impugned order dated 18-1-2010 the petitioner has come up with the instant criminal revision under section 439, Cr.P.C. with the prayer that by modifying the impugned order, the sum of sureties i.e, ten millions may be decreased and the petitioner may be allowed to furnish his sureties having men of means from District D.I. Khan.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not involved in this case and the entire drama has been staged by his other brother namely Hassan Rasheed who remained Ex- Manager of Allied Bank Limited, Khalid Market Branch, D.I. Khan. It was further urged that the petitioner is a student and he is not aware of his Account bearing No,CD 2473-5 in the said Branch nor he has withdrawn any 'amount from the said Bank but even then he is ready to deposit the bail bond for the satisfaction of appearance in the Court but he is not able to find out reliable sureties of ways and means in Peshawar being the bona fide resident of District D.I. Khan.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Farooq Akhtar, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant urged that the petitioner has played active role in the commission of the offence and the bail order passed by Special Court concerned is according to subsection (7) of section 5 of the Statute Offences in respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984 and the order passed is reasonable and does not call for any further amendment.
6. We have considered the submissions addressed at the bar by learned counsel for the parties and have reached to the conclusion that the petitioner is reportedly a student and he might not be in a position to arrange sureties with such a huge amount. Besides this, the perusal of F.I.R. shows that the embezzlement is to the extent of 20 million approximately and for the said embezzlement three accounts have been mentioned in the F.I.R., therefore; the release order on bail in the sum of Rupees ten million is harsh because nobody will be ready to stand surety for the petitioner against such a robust amount, therefore, in view of the circumstances of the case, we, by acceptance of the instant revision petition, reduce the surety amount from Rupees ten million to Rupees five million which would meet the ends of justice, with the directions to the petitioner to furnish the same in the Court of Special Judge, Peshawar. The sureties must be local (D.I. Khan), men of sufficient means and reliable.