MUHAMMAD IQBAL alias LALI SARWAR and others vs MUHAMMAD IQBAL and others
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the procedural requirements for an accused person summoned by a trial court in a private complaint case. The core legal question addressed is whether such an accused must formally apply for bail under Sections 496, 497, or 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, or if they are merely required to submit a bond for appearance under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court noted that existing jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and various High Courts on this specific procedural issue is conflicting, leading to uncertainty in the administration of justice. Recognizing the imperative need to resolve these conflicting interpretations and restore legal certainty for courts across the country, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both petitions. The Court directed the office to schedule the appeals for a regular hearing within one month to settle the legal position definitively. In the interim, the Court maintained the ad interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioners.
- Does an accused person summoned by a trial court in a private complaint case need to apply for bail under Sections 496, 497, or 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is an accused person summoned by a trial court in a private complaint case only required to submit a bond for appearance under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 91, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 496, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---The question involved in these petitions is as to whether upon his summoning by a trial Court in a case arising out of a private complaint an accused person needs to apply for bail in terms of sections 496, 497 and 498, Cr.P.C. Or in such a situation he is only to submit a bond for his appearance before the trial Court under section 91, Cr.P.C. It appears that in different judgments different notes have been struck by this Court on the subject and a reference in this respect may be made to the cases of Syed Muhammad Firdaus and others v. The State (2005 SCM R 784), Luqman All v. Hazaro and another (2010 SCM R 611) and Criminal Appeal No, 56 of 1986 (Raham Dad v. Syed Mazhar Hussain Shah) decided by this Court on 14-1-1987). At different times different High Courts had also rendered conflicting judgments on the issue. It is, therefore, imperative that such conflicts should be removed or resolved at the earliest so as to restore certainty in the matter for the guidance of all the courts in the country. In this view of the matter leave to appeal is granted in both these petitions and the Office is directed to fix the appeals for regular hearing at the earliest possible, preferably within a period of one month The petitioners in Criminal Petition No, 549-L of 2011 have already been admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 11-8-2011. Their ad interim pre-arrest bail shall continue till the next date of hearing.
Cited by 3 cases
- Sarwar and others, Iftikhar Ahmed, Nadeem Khan, Shaukat Ali, Mukhtiar Hussain vs The State and others, Allah Ditta and others 2014 SCMR 1762
- Sarwar, etc. vs The State 2014 PSC (Crl.) 738
- SARWAR and others vs STATE and others 2015 PLJ SC 1