Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2011 YLR 1648

ASAD ULLAH KHAN vs THE STATE

Citation2011 YLR 1648
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Revision Application No,34 of 2011
Date2011-03-10
Judge(s)Maqbool Baqar, Shahid Anwar Bajwa
ResultOrder accordingly

ORDER

1. Through this Criminal Revision Application the applicant, accused in F.I.R. No,8/2009 of Police Station FIA CBC II/Karachi, under sections 406/409/420/34, P.P.C., has assailed the order dated 23- 2-2011 passed by the learned Special Court (Offences in Respect of Banks) Karachi, whereby the applicant has been granted bail but subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs,23,00,000-00, and also subject to deposit of Rs,22,89,200-00 being the amount allegedly misappropriated by the co- accused in the court.

2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order for deposit of the amount has perhaps been passed on account of misconception about the relevant law, as though in terms of subsection (7) of section 5 of the Banking Offences (Offences in Respect of Banks) Ordinance, 1984, it was mandatory for the court granting bail to make it conditional to furnishing a surety not less than twice the amount embezzled, however, the word "twice", vide amendment effected through Act XVI of 1997, has been deleted and now it is not necessary that the surety amount should be twice the amount embezzled. He has placed before us the relevant Ordinance and referred to the aforesaid provision, which now reads as follows:-- "Section 5(7)--- Where an accused person is released on bail, the amount of bail shall be fixed having regard to the gravity of the charge against such person and where the charge specifies any amount in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, shall not be less than the said amount."

3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the above amendment it is now no more required that the surety amount be double of the embezzled amount.

4. In view of the above, Mr. Ashique Raza, learned D.A.-G. concedes to the request.

5. We therefore, by consent amend the bail order by withdrawing the condition of deposit of Rs,22,89,200-00 required through impugned order and instead the petitioner shall now deposit the amount of Rs,23,00,000-00 with PR Bond in the like amount as surety to the satisfaction of trial Court, which amount may be invested in some profit earning government scheme.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch