IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI.

Cr. Bail Appln. No.  180 of 2025.  

DATE                           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE

.For hearing of M.A No. 4198 of 2025.

11.4.2025.

                  Mr. Ehtishamullah Khan, Advocate for the applicant.

                  Mr. Ahmer Jamail Khan, Advocate for the complainant.

                  Mr. Amna Ansari, Addl. P.G Sindh.

                  PI Hassan Ali of P.S Sachal.  

======

O R D E R

AMJAD ALI SAHITO, J;- Through the listed Miscellaneous Application bearing No. 4198/2025, the applicant/accused, Tazeem Faheem Hans, seeks a reduction in the surety amount required to be furnished in terms of the bail granted to him by this  Court vide order dated 04.02.2025. In the said order, the applicant was directed to furnish two sureties in the sum of Rs. 2,000,000/- (Rupees Two Million only) each, along with a personal bond in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

2.   Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is indigent and lacks the financial means to arrange the substantial surety amount as stipulated. Consequently, despite the concession of bail having been extended to him on 04.02.2025, the applicant remains incarcerated. He, therefore, prays for a reduction in the surety amount to a reasonable and manageable level, enabling the applicant to avail himself of the benefit of post-arrest bail already granted by this Court.

3. Conversely, learned counsel representing the complainant, as well as the learned Additional Prosecutor General, has strongly opposed the prayer for reduction in the surety amount. They contend that any reduction may result in the applicant absconding. It is further argued that the applicant is liable to pay Diyat as required under Sections 320 and 322 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), thereby justifying the initially fixed amount.

4.  I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/accused, the learned counsel for the complainant, and the learned Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh. I have also perused the material available on record.

5.   It is evident that although this Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant on 04.02.2025, he has remained in custody for over two months and twenty days due to his inability to arrange sureties, citing financial constraints. The object of requiring surety is not punitive in nature but serves to secure the presence of the accused before the Court. Accordingly, the surety amount must be commensurate with the financial capacity of the accused and the nature of the alleged offence.

6. It is a well-established principle that no unnecessary impediments should be placed in the way of an accused person in availing bail. The accused ought to be released on bail upon furnishing surety of a reasonable amount sufficient to ensure his attendance during trial. The accused is allegedly involved in a case of accidental death of a 65-year-old woman due to alleged negligence. The complainant, in the FIR, acknowledged that the fatal injuries to his mother were caused due to the accused’s negligence. In such circumstances, the demand for a disproportionately high surety amount from the applicant appears excessive and punitive. The mother of the applicant, who was present in Court, also stated that despite her best efforts, she was unable to arrange the required sureties.

7. In view of the foregoing, by short order dated 11.04.2025, the instant application bearing M.A. No. 4198/2025 was allowed. The surety amount required for bail was reduced from Rs. 2,000,000/- with two sureties to Rs. 500,000/- (Rupees Five Hundred Thousand only), along with a personal bond in the same amount, to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. These are the reasons of my short order dated 11.04.2025.

                                                            JUDGE