On 27-6-1991 at about 1-30 a.m. Applicants Kamal and Qadir, both Indian nationals were apprehended while attempting to smuggle into Pakistan 70 bottles of Indian wine and 100 litres Acetic Anhydride, a chemical used in the preparation of powder of heroin and a case under section 156(1)(8) of Customs Act, 1969, was registered against them. After usual investigation both the applicants were sent up to stand trial before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi.
The applicants applied for bail before learned Special Judge who was pleased to allow the same but demanded a heavy surety for the following reasons:-- "Bail is granted to both the applicants in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) with 2 sureties of the like amount, and P.R. Bondfor each. Invariably foreigners when enlarged on bail, have absconded away. Bail amount has been fixed, keeping in view the above trend of the foreigners."
2. The applicants who are too poor to arrange for this heavy surety have now approached this Court seeking reduction of the surety amount, which according to them is beyond their means.
3. I have heard Mr. S. Jehangir Hussain Shah, learned counsel for applicants and have perused the impugned order. None has appeared on behalf of State.
4. The object of calling upon the accused to furnish the surety is not to penalise them, but to ensure their presence in Court and, therefore, the A amount of surety must be fixed with due regard to the- nature of the offence and the means of accused. In the case of (Swami) Chetanand v. Gurbakhsh Singh reported in AIR 1930 Lah. 668, this question was examined and it was observed:-- "Incidentally it may be mentioned that the Magistrate entirely ignored the principles underlying the fixing of the amount of security which an accused person can be called upon to furnish. It has more than one been laid down that the object is not to penalise the accused but to ensure his presence in Court and the amount of security must be fixed with due regard to the means of the accused and the nature of the offence."
5. Mr. S. Jehangir Hussain Shah, learned counsel for applicants has, therefore, contended that no needless impediment should be placed in the way of accused for being admitted to bail. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Qadir and another v. The State reported in PLD 1991 Kar. 353, wherein such observations were made.
6. The applicants who were allowed bail on 18-7-1991 have not been able 8 to secure their release although a period of about four months has elapsed.
7. Having regard to the above circumstances, I would accept this revision application by reducing the amount of bail-bond to Rs.1,00,000 (Rs. One lac) each with two sureties and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court
8. In the result the revision application is allowed.