The three petitioners-accused have been admitted to bail vide order, dated 4-6-1995 by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar in the sum of Rs.5 lac each with two sureties each in the like amount. It was directed that the sureties shall furnish the registered deed about their ownership alongwith the surety bonds and in case such like sureties are not available then the petitioners shall be released provided they furnish bank guarantee of Rs.10 lac each in favour of the State in this case.
2. Feeling aggrieved of the quantum of --the aforesaid amount and harshness of the aforesaid order this petition has been filed under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.
3. This petition has been resisted by the State and the complainant. About the maintainability of the application and the justification for the reduction of the amount of surety bond learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Muhammad Younus and 2 others v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 2464, Mian Abdul Waheed v. The State 1989 M LD 4731 and Rana Muhammad Siddique v. The State (1994 PCr.LJ 118). According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the co-accused of these petitioners have been admitted to bail in the sum of 8830,000 each with one surety each in the like amount vide order, dated 9-5-1993 and that these petitioners are entitled to equitable treatment. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the adverse side is that the petitioners are principal accused who are alleged to have committed the double murder and likelihood of their abscondence cannot be ruled out. The petitioners are admittedly not the big Zamindars. In my view while awarding the punishment of fine or fixing the amount of surety bond the circumstances of the accused have to be kept in mind. After going through the last para of the impugned judgment dated 4-6-1995 it can safely be expressed that the same is rather too harsh and the amount is beyond the reach of the petitioners-accused. Rather the order, dated 4-6-1995 admitting the petitioners to bail has practically nullified the same. According to the dictum enunciated in Mian Abdul Waheed v. The State 1989 M LD 4731 the Court should take into consideration financial position of the person concerned as to whether or not he would be in a position to furnish surety and that the order E fixing the surety amount beyond the reach of the accused would simply amount to refusal of bail. No doubt the petitioners have reaped the legal benefit of their detention of more than two years and have been admitted to bail on statutory ground. However, they shall not be able to get the impugned order executed in view of their circumstances in life. The common scene is that persons of means readily stand surety for persons (accused) of means while for persons (accused) of less means sometimes it becomes difficult to procure a surety of means. Keeping in view every aspect, I accept this application and modify the impugned order as under:--- The petitioners are admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.2 lac (Rupees Two lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the D satisfaction of the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar.
4. This application stands disposed of.