SIDDIQUE vs STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge granting post-arrest bail subject to the payment of compensation to the complainant. The core legal question concerns the legality of imposing a financial compensation condition for the grant of bail when no such promise is documented on the judicial or police record. The court held that once grounds for bail are established and the accused is found deserving of the concession, imposing an unjustified financial condition of compensation not supported by record is unsustainable in law. The revision petition was accordingly allowed, setting aside the condition of compensation while upholding the grant of bail upon furnishing surety bonds. The key principle laid down is that onerous or extraneous conditions, such as unverified compensation payments allegedly agreed upon in a panchayat, cannot be legally attached to an order granting bail.
- Can a court impose a condition of financial compensation for granting post-arrest bail when no such promise is recorded on the file?
- Whether an unjustified condition attached to a bail order can be set aside in criminal revision?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner had applied for post- arrest bail in a case relating to FIR No. 46/05 dated 29.1.2005 under Sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C. Mice Station Jampur District Rajanpur. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 9.7.2005 granted the bail subject to payment of Rs. 19,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation as promised by the petitioner during a Punchayat.
2. The aforesaid order to the extent of imposition of the said condition is now under challenge through the instant revision petition.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. I have noticed that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in his order dated 9.7.2005 lime-lighted the factors justifying the grant of post-arrest bail to the petitioner. He has clearly observed in the said order that, the present petitioner rightly deserves for concession of bail". I have also noticed that there is nothing in black & white on the file of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge as well as the police file that the petitioner had, ever promised to pay a sum of Rs. 19,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant.
5. All the above factors taken together persuade me to hold that imposition of condition of Rs.
19,000/- before enlarging the petitioner on bail is not justified and the same is hereby set-aside, by allowing this revision petition. Resultantly, petitioner shall be immediately released on bail as ordered 'by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 9.7.2005, "subject to furnishing surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court (learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jampur)".
6. I have been told that the petitioner is behind the bars since 7.2.2005. It is a pity that he remaind behind the bars for such a long time, without there being any fault/omission on his party. Hence, the office shall convey the instant order to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jampur, immediately.