Noora petitioner-accused is involved in case FJ.R. No.62 registered on 13-4-1993 at Police Station Sadar, Bahawalnagar under section 302/34, P.P.C. He alongwith his co-accused in the furtherance of common intention is alleged to have committed the murder of Ghulam Haider. He was arrested on 5-5-1993. The challan has been submitted which has been sent up to the Court of Session. The charge has been framed. Eight P.Ws. Have been examined till 12-2-1995. At present the trial Court Additional Sessions Judge has gone on long leave. After the lapse of period of two years Noora petitioner moved the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar for his admission to bail on the statutory ground of his detention for the continuous period of two years. The Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar took up the matter and expressed that due to the absence of the Presiding Officer the trial would not be concluded in the near future. He gave the verdict that Noora petitioner-accused had earned a valuable right for his admission to bail on the aforesaid statutory ground especially when the Presiding Officer was not working. The operative order passed by the Sessions Judge is reproduced as under: -- "For the foregoing reasons, I admit the petitioner to post-arrest bail purely on statutory ground in the sum of Rs. Five lac with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court. The sureties shall furnish registered deed about their ownership alongwith surety bonds. In case such like sureties are not available, then the petitioner shall be released provided he furnishes bank guarantee of Rs. Ten lac in favour of the State in this case."
2. Feeling aggrieved of the harshness of the said order as well as the heavy quantum of aforesaid amount this petition has been filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For the reduction of the aforesaid amount to some reasonable quantum according to the financial position of Noora petitioner.
3. This petition has been resisted by the State. About the maintainability of the matter in hand and the justification for the reduction of the amount of surety bond learned counsel for Noora petitioner 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. Learned State Counsel has canvassed that the petitioner is the principal accused who committed a gruesome murder of Ghulam Haider and the Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar has passed the impugned order according to the discretion exercised by him. He expressed the apprehension about the abscondence of Noora petitioner who according to him is a desperate person. My view is that the merits of the impugned order, dated 4-6-1995 admitting Noora petitioner to bail can neither be analysed nor dissected as no application for cancellation of bail has been moved by the State or the complainant. The dispute in hand is simply about the quantum of the amount. Noora petitioner is, not a big Zamindar. Legally while awarding 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/held that the same is rather too harsh and the amount is beyond the reach of Noora petitioner. It is held that order, dated 4-6- 1995 admitting Noora petitioner to bail with the condition impugned through the filing of this petition has practically nullified the same. The case --law is not bereft/lacking of the judicial decisions to the effect that the circumstances in life of the accused and his financial position must be kept in mind while fixing the surety amount. It has been held in Mian Abdul Waheed v. The State 1989 M LD 4731 that the Court should take into consideration the financial position of the person concerned as to whether or not he would be in a position to furnish surety and that the order fixing the surety amount beyond the reach of the accused would simply amount to refusal of bail. At present Noora petitioner has reaped/derived the legal benefit of his detention of more than two years in the judicial lock-up who on the statutory ground has been admitted to bail. However, it can safely be expressed that he shall not be able to get the impugned order executed in view of his circumstances in life. His name "Noora" is enough to make out that he is not a wealthy person or that he is man of means. No evidence in this regard has been adduced by the State. It is a matter of common observation that persons of means readily stand surety for person (accused) of means while for person (accused) of less/no means some time it becomes difficult to procure a surety of means according to the satisfaction of the concerned Presiding Officer. Keeping in view all the aspects of the dispute in hand. I accept this application and dispose of the same by modifying as under the last part of order, dated 4-6-1995 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur: -- "Noora petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.1 lac (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge/Duty Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar."