Muhammad Ayub vs The State
The petitioner challenged a condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Daska, while granting post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 436/06 under Section 469-F, Pakistan Penal Code, requiring the execution of a bank guarantee of Rs. 3,50,000/- as surety. The core legal question was whether a court can insist upon a bank guarantee or cash deposit as a precondition for bail under Sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court held that the provisions of Sections 497, 498, and 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contemplate the execution of a bond with sureties and neither a cash deposit nor a bank guarantee on the court's own accord. Section 513 permits cash deposits only at the request of the accused for their convenience, not as a mandatory precondition imposed by the court. Consequently, the impugned order demanding a bank guarantee was set aside and the matter remanded. The key principle laid down is that a court has no power to unilaterally insist upon a bank guarantee or cash security for bail without a request from the accused under Section 513.
- Can a court insist upon the deposit of a bank guarantee or cash security as a precondition for granting bail?
- Do the provisions of Sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 contemplate cash deposits or bank guarantees?
- Under what circumstances can a court accept a sum of money in lieu of a surety bond under Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 513, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
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.. 436/06, dated 3.7.2006, under Section 469-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 precondition on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 497, Cr.P.C, In this regard, he relies upon 1998 SGMR 6, Mst. Atshan Bibi v. The State.
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 learned counsel. The provisions of Section 497, Cr.P.C, do not require such precondition. 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 Lahore 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 $ surety bond, that a careful examination of Section 513, Cr.P.C, leads to the conclusion that 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 provisions was enacted in the interest of persons/accused, because in some cases they may be strangers in an area where the case if 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 on 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.