Rana MUHAMMAD FAZAL vs THE STATE
The petitioner, previously granted bail by the High Court, challenged a trial court order that had rejected the surety bonds provided by his wife and son. The core legal question was whether the trial court could arbitrarily reject surety bonds solely because they were furnished by the accused's immediate family members. The High Court allowed the criminal revision, holding that there is no legal prohibition against an accused person furnishing surety bonds through their wife and son. The Court found no valid justification for the trial court's rejection of these sureties. Consequently, the High Court modified the trial court's order, directing the petitioner to furnish the required surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court instead of the trial court. The key principle laid down is that the relationship of a surety to an accused, specifically being a spouse or child, does not constitute a valid legal ground for the rejection of bail bonds, provided the sureties are otherwise acceptable.
- Can a trial court reject surety bonds solely on the ground that the sureties are the wife and son of the accused?
- Does the relationship of a surety to an accused constitute a valid legal bar to the acceptance of bail bonds?
ORDER
' PERVAIZ AHMAD, J.---The petitioner, who had been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 30-10-2003 subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,3 millions with two local and very respectable sureties of the same police Station where the F.I.R. Was registered to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner has submitted that he furnished surety bonds of his wife and son but the trial Court did not accept the same and disposed of the matter vide order dated 13-11-2003.
The petitioner feeling himself aggrieved has filed this criminal revision.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Counsel have been heard.
4. Prima facie, the petitioner is willing to furnish surety bonds of his wife and son and there is no legal bar as to why surety bonds be rejected only on the ground that it had been furnished by the son and wife of the accused. As such the present criminal revision is allowed and the order dated 13-11-2003 is modified that the petitioner is directed to furnish surety bonds as provided in the same order but to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar(J) of this Court. Disposed of.