SIDDIQUE vs THE STATE
This revision petition challenges an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur, which granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner in a criminal case registered under Sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, subject to the condition of paying Rs. 19,000 as compensation to the complainant. The core legal question was whether the trial court was justified in imposing a monetary condition for bail based on an alleged promise made during a Panchayat, despite a lack of evidence on the record supporting such a promise. The Court held that the imposition of this financial condition was unjustified, noting that the trial court had already acknowledged the petitioner's entitlement to bail. Furthermore, the Court found no evidentiary basis for the alleged promise of compensation. Consequently, the Court set aside the condition, allowing the revision petition and ordering the petitioner's release upon furnishing surety bonds. The judgment reaffirms the principle that bail conditions must be supported by the record and cannot be based on unsubstantiated claims of extra-judicial promises.
- Can a court impose a condition of monetary compensation to the complainant as a prerequisite for granting post-arrest bail?
- Is a bail condition valid if it is based on an alleged promise that is not supported by the record?
- Section 337-F(v), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-F(i), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J.--- Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the petitioner had applied for post-arrest bail in a case relating to F.I.R. No,46 of 2005 dated 29-1-2005 under sections 337-F(v), 337-F(i), 34, P.P.C. Police Station Jampur District Rajanpur. The learned Additional 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 Additional 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 and white on the file of the learned Additional 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 Additional 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 Count (learned Additional 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 remained behind the bars for such a long time, without there being any fault/omission on his part.
Hence, the office shall convey the instant order to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jampur, immediately.