1997 P Cr (PLP)

S. 498

Any condition regarding intending surety not lawful

Court under S.498, Cr.P.C. can direct an accused or surety to furnish bond which should not be excessive but it does not envisage that any condition with regard to any intending surety can also be imposed. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Ss. 498 & 561-A

Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10/16

Condition imposed about surety

Sessions Court after having come to the conclusion that the accused was entitled to the concession of bail and while admitting her to bail, had imposed a condition that only her father should stand surety

Such condition might look justifiable keeping in view the prevailing customs and social norms to the society but it did not have any sanction of law

Order of Sessions Court imposing condition about having a ,particular person as surety was not sustainable in view of language employed in 5.498, Cr.P.C.

Condition whereby only father could stand surety for the :accused was consequently deleted in the impugned order and the accused was directed to furnish bail bond with a surety as ordered by the Sessions Court to its satisfaction in the amount already specified

Petition was accepted accordingly. Mst. Chan Bibi v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 1317 ref. Mian Ashfaq Ahmad for Petitioner. Riaz Ahmad for the State. Submits that although the petitioner has been admitted to bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif yet a condition has been impsoed that the surety shall be filed only by the father. The order has been Y`J assailed on the ground that the condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not in accordance with law and section 498, Cr.P.C. does not envisage any such condition. The plain reading of the section reveals that amount of every bond executed under this chapter shall be fixed with due regard to the circumstances of the cases and shall not be excessive. It clearly means that the Court can direct an accused or surety to furnish bond, which should not be excessive but it does not envisage that any condition with regard to any intending surety has also been imposed. Rather on the contrary it appears that under section 498, Cr.P.C. it has been made clear that in case the bail is allowed the same surety or accused he should not be burdened with a heavy bond, which he should not be in a position to furnish or execute. In the present case if the learned Additional Sessions Judge had come to the conclusion that the accused person was entitled to the concession of bail then imposition of condition that only her father should stand surety does not have any sanction of law on the subject. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited a case titled Mst. Chan Bibi v. The State 1993 PCr.LJ 1317 decided by a learned Judge from Peshawar High Court observing that there is no justification at all to dovtail bail order with condition complained of i.e. some relative of the petitioner should have stood surety. An order imposing such-like condition was modified and a fresh order determining the amount of bail bond was passed.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has argued that there were peculiar circumstances of the present case because the accused -petitioner had contracted marriage against the will of her father and apprehending that the petitioner may not join her husband against the will of the father, this condition was imposed. The condition may look justifiable keeping in view the prevailing customs and social norms in our society but any order passed by any of the Judicial Officer must have a legal sanction to support it. In the present case plain reading of section 498, Cr.P.C. indicates that the order subjected to the condition of the surety is not sustainable. 1, therefore, accept the petition and delete the condition whereby only father can stand surety for the accused-petitioner in the impugned order, dated 19-3-1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan Sharif. The petitioner will furnish bail bond with a surety as ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to his satisfaction in the amount as has been specified already.

3. With these observations this petition is disposed of. N.H.Q./W-12/L Petition accepted.