1. FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J. In the instant matter, with the consent of learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Special Prosecutor (Customs), the applicant was granted bail vide order dated 23.09.2019 subject to deposit the Security of 25% of alleged evaded amount of Sales Tax with the Nazir of this Court as well as furnishing of solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with PR bond in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of learned trial Court.
2. By filing of the listed application, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young man of only 23 years old and is also a student while none of his family members is able to deposit 25% of alleged evaded amount of Sales Tax as Security in cash but the applicant is ready to furnish the documents of some property equivalent to 25% of alleged evaded amount of Sales Tax as Security. He also submits that the applicant is also suffering from heart problems since his birth. Learned Special Prosecutor (Customs) submits that the order dated 23.09.2019 as passed by consent of the parties; as such, the same cannot be modified and the applicant has to deposit cash amount equivalent to 25% of the alleged evaded amount of Sales Tax. He also submits that' the applicant is the main culprit and his bail applications have been declined several times by the trial Court even on medical ground, and if he will be released without cash security, he may become absconder.
3. I have heard the arguments and have gone through the relevant record. It appears that the earlier order was passed by consent of the parties and the prosecutor was satisfied regarding the release of the applicant on bail subject to deposit of Security. Nevertheless, the mode of Security is disputed. It has not been offered by the applicant's counsel at the time of passing the earlier order that 25% of the alleged evaded amount of Sales Tax will be deposited in favour of the department but a security equivalent to 25% of the alleged evaded amount is to be deposited with the Nazir of this Court. I am of the view that the demand of Security from the applicant was only imposed as there was a consent from the prosecution but in a criminal case, it would not be justified to force an accused to deposit security in the shape of cash amount and furnishing of documents of an urban property will suffice to cater the requirement of security as passed in the earlier order. I am also of the opinion that at the time of granting bail, a Criminal Court cannot force an accused to deposit security in the shape of cash because the security/surety in the shape of cash is an alien to the Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898). However, under Section 513, Cr.P.C., the law permits a person to execute a bond in lieu thereof to deposit cash security if he desires so. In this regard, I would like to take reliance from a case of Divisional Bench of this Court reported as Ahmed v. The State (1999 YLR 2504). Nevertheless, there was no such demand from the accused who is only required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court which may be in the shape of the cash amount or a document of urban property but should not be less than the worth of security amount as required in the order dated 23.09.2019.
4. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there will be no impediment to clarify the earlier order dated 23.09.2019 in respect of Security to be deposited with the Nazir of this Court. As such; the earlier order dated 23.09.2019 is hereby modified/clarified to the extent that any of the closed relatives of the applicant may deposit documents of an urban property preferably situated within the limits of Karachi, which is more than 25% of alleged evaded amount of Sales Tax, in terms of worth of property with the Nazir of this Court. It is further directed that if the applicant is holding a Passport, the same should also be deposited with the Nazir of this Court. It is also directed that the name of the applicant be placed in the Exit Control List by the concerned department so that he may not leave the country during the trial. However, 1 consider that in the existing situation, the amount of surety to be furnished before the trial Court is to be enhanced compatibility to those accused persons who have been granted bail. Therefore, the amount of surety is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to 200,000/-. However, I would like to add that the terms and conditions of earlier bail order shall remain intact with the modification that the security as well as surety, both, are required to furnish PR bond in the like amount as per law and in case the applicant becomes absconder then the action will be taken against the person who furnished security document before the Nazir of this Court as well as the person who furnished surety before the trial Court as per the provision of Section 514, Cr.P.C.
5. Before parting, I would like to observe that if the applicant after releasing on bail, fails to appear before the trial Court and/or the trial Court is satisfied that the applicant has misused the concession of bail and became absconder then the trial Court is fully empowered to take every action against the applicant and his surety including cancellation of the bail without making a reference to this Court.
6. The instant application is disposed of.