ABDUL AHAD vs THE STATE-the State
The petitioner, arrested on charges of theft of motor cars in five separate cases, was granted bail by the magistrate subject to a condition requiring the surety amount of Rs. 5,000.00 in each case to be deposited in cash. Upon a revision petition, the Sessions Judge reduced the cash amount to Rs. 2,000.00 per case but maintained the cash deposit condition. The petitioner challenged this order before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether a court or magistrate has the power to demand a cash deposit as a condition for granting bail. Relying on binding precedents, the High Court held that the imposition of a cash deposit condition is illegal as the relevant statutory provisions contemplate the execution of a bond with sureties and not a cash deposit. Consequently, the revision applications were allowed, setting aside the cash deposit condition and directing the petitioner to furnish surety and P.R. bonds.
- Does a Magistrate have the power to require an accused person to deposit cash as a condition for bail?
- Whether the imposition of a cash deposit condition while granting bail is permissible under the law?
- Section 499, Code of Criminal Procedure
ORDER
The petitioner was arrested on 23-12-1969 on charge of theft of motor cars. He was challaned in five cases. He applied for bail in all the five cases and he was released by A. C. M. Court No. 24, Karachi. The amount of surety was fixed in the sum of Rs. 5,000.00 in each case. One of the conditions, however, was that this amount had to be deposited in cash. The petitioner thereafter, moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi for reduction of the bail amount and to set aside the condition of cash deposit. The learned Sessions Judge declined the later request but reduced the cash amount to Rs. 2,000.00 in each case. Being aggrieved by this order dated 10-4-1970 of the learned Sessions Judge the petitioner has filed five bail applications, which 1 have treated as revision applications, and are being disposed of by this order.
2. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Vian Mahmud Ali Qasuri v.
State (PLD 1963 SC 478), that imposition of such conditions while granting bail is not permissible under the law. Their Lordships in fact disagreed with the judgment in the case of Afadhukar Purshottam Nondkar v. Talab Haji Hussain (AIR. 1958 SC 376). Mr. Makhdum Sharif, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the case of Lakhi Narayan Kundu v. The Crown (PLD 1955 Dacca 84), and in particular to the following observations: - "Section 499 contemplates the execution of a bond with sureties and not a cash deposit. A Magistrate has no power to require an accused person to deposit a sum of money in Court as surety for his attendance in Court at a given time."
3. I respectfully agree with these observations and in view of these two authorities both the orders of the learned Magistrate as well as of the Sessions Judge are obviously illegal as no cash surety could be insisted upon. I would accordingly revise the order in the following term
4. That the petitioner shall be released on bail in each case on his furnishing a separate surety in the sum of Rs. 5,000.0 (Rupees five thousand) -each and P. R. Bond in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
5. These revision applications are accordingly allowed.
Cited by 5 cases
- THE STATE vs MUHAMMAD HASHAM BABAR 1997 PLD Lahore 605
- NOORUL AMIN And 4 Others vs SAID NAZIR and another- 1992 P Cr. L J 800
- Mst. PATHANI AND ANOTHERs vs MURTAZA AND 2 OTHERS 1985 PLD Lahore 512
- Mst. ZAHIDA KHATOON vs THE STATE 1984 SCMR 687
- SABIR HUSSAIN vs THE STATE 1980 P Cr. L J 323