2007 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AYUB — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Nazir Ahmad Meo for Petitioner.
- 3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab was noticed. He has appeared and does not oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 497, 498 & 513
Grant of bail subject to furnishing bank guarantee
Provision of S.513, Cr.P.C.
Court of Session while granting post-arrest bail to accused, directed him to execute bank guarantee as surety
Accused contended that said pre-condition was not in consonance with provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C. did not require such pre-condition, of depositing cash security and provisions of S.498, Cr.P.C. required the Court that amount of surety bond was not to be excessive
Court while dealing with application under Ss.497 & 498, Cr.P.C. had no power to insist upon deposit of cash security in connection with bail
Sections 497, 498 & 499, Cr.P.C., if read together, contemplated execution of a bond with sureties and a cash deposit or a bank guarantee was not required
Section 513, Cr.P.C., however, mentioned about deposit of a sum of money as surety in place of a surety bond but a careful examination of S.513, Cr.P.C. leads to conclusion that provisions of said section were for the convenience of accused who had been granted pre-arrest or post-arrest bail
Section 513, Cr.P.C. provided that if accused made an application, the Court might accord permission to him to deposit a sum of money or government promissory note of such amount as Court might fix in lieu of executing such bonds
Section 513 seemed to be enacted in the interest of accused who could be stranger in an area where case was registered or where he was unable to arrange for bail bonds or offer sureties
Accused, under such circumstances, if offered a cash deposit, Court was allowed in its discretion to accept that deposit instead of insisting upon execution of a bond
Court, on its own accord, however, was not to insist on deposit of a sum of money as surety or a bank guarantee
Order passed by the Court was set aside as being contrary to law
Revision petition was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
The petitioner was granted post-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska, vide his order, dated 9-9-2006. The petitioner was booked in F.I.R. No.436 of 2006, dated 3-7-2006, under section 489-F, P.P.C. registered at Police Station City Daska, District Sialkot. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, directed the petitioner to execute a bank guarantee of Rs.3,50,000 within 7 days as surety.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the above pre-condition on the ground that the same is not a consonance with the provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. In this regard, he relies upon Mst. Afshan Bibi v. The State 1998 SCMR 6.
3. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab was noticed. He has appeared and does not oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel. The provisions of section 497, Cr.P.C. do not require such pre-condition. The provisions of section 498, Cr.P.C. require the Court that the amount of surety bonds should not be excessive. In the State v. Muhammad Hashim Babar PLD 1997 Lah. 605, a Division Bench of this Court has also observed that the Court while dealing with the application under section 497/498, Cr.P.C. has no power to insist upon deposit of cash security in connection with the bail.
5. If sections 497, 498 and 499, Cr.P.C. are read together, it is clear that the law contemplates the execution of a bond with sureties and neither a cash deposit nor a bank guarantee.
6. However, section 513, Cr.P.C. mentions about deposit of a sum of money as surety in place of a surety band, but a careful examination of section 513, Cr.P.C. leads to the conclusion that the provisions of this section are for the convenience of an accused person who has been granted pre-arrest or post-arrest bail. Construction of section 513, Cr.P.C. would be that if a petitioner makes an application, the Court may accord permission to him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory note of such amount as the Court may fix, in lieu of executing such bonds. It seems that the said provision was enacted in the interest of persons/accused, because in some cases they may be strangers in an area where the case is registered or for some other reasons are not in a position to arrange for bail bonds or able to offer sureties. In such circumstances if a person/accused offers a cash deposit, the Court is allowed in its discretion to accept that deposit instead of insisting upon execution of a bond, however, a Court on its own accord cannot insist on the deposit of a sum of money as surety or a bank guarantee as demanded in the impugned order.
7. In view of the above reasons and discussion, the impugned order is set aside and declared contrary to the law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Daska' is directed to modify his order in light of the above discussion, the bail application shall be deemed as pending before him. With the above direction, this revision petition is allowed. S.M.B./M-541/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.