SAIF-UL-MULK vs State S — 2023 PTD 143 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SAIF-UL-MULK VS State S.497---Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss.33(11)(c) & 33(13)----Bail---Requirement of cash surety---Scope---Accused was granted bail with the consent of Special Prosecutor (Customs) subject to the deposit of 25% of the alleged evaded amount of sales tax with the Nazir of the High Court as well as furnishing of solvent surety---Accused through the listed application submitted that neither he nor his family members were able to deposit 25% of the alleged evaded amount of sales tax as security in cash but he was ready to furnish the documents of property equivalent to 25% of alleged evaded amount of sales tax as security---Demand of security from the accused was only imposed as there was a consent from the prosecution but in a criminal case it was not justified to force an accused to deposit security in the shape of cash amount and furnishing documents of an urban property was sufficient to cater the requirement of security---Accused was only required to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Nazir of the High Court which could be in the shape of cash amount or a document of urban property but could not be less than the worth of security amount---Earlier order was modified accordingly. Citation Name: 2023 PTD 143 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case SAIF-UL-MULK VS State S.513---Deposit instead of recognizance---Scope---Criminal court, at the time of granting bail, cannot force an accused to deposit security in the shape of cash because the security/surety in the shape of cash is alien to the of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Section 513, Cr.P.C., however, permits a person to execute a bond in lieu thereof to deposit cash security if he so desires.

SAIF-UL-MULK vs State S — 2023 PTD 143 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PTD