Mst Safeena Shah vs The State
This matter concerns a petition filed by an under-trial prisoner seeking permission to deposit cash security in lieu of furnishing bail bonds, following a previous grant of bail. The core legal question was whether the Court has the authority to order cash security under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that while Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not authorize a Court to demand cash security of its own motion, it permits the Court to accept such a request if made by the accused, particularly when the accused faces genuine difficulty in arranging local sureties. The Court emphasized that the statutory language 'permit him to deposit' implies that cash security is an enabling provision for the accused's benefit rather than a coercive power of the Court. Consequently, the Court allowed the applicant to deposit the surety amount in cash, provided she also furnished a personal bond and a bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the relevant Judicial Magistrate.
- Does Section 513 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 authorize a Court to demand cash security from an accused?
- Under what circumstances can a Court permit an accused to deposit cash security instead of furnishing bail bonds?
- Can a Court order the deposit of cash security on its own motion?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 15, Arms Act (KPK)
- Section 513, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
SHAKEEL AHMAD, J. Applicant Mst. Safeena Shah has moved this petition seeking therein permission to deposit the surety amount Rs.200,000/- in cash.
2. The applicant is detained as an under trial prisoner of offences under sections 302/109 PPC read with section 15 AA KPK in crime No.1119 dated 03.08.2020 registered at PS City, Haripur . I had admitted the applicant to bail on 12.10.2020, and directed that she be released "subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa /Duty Judicial Magistrate, Haripur , who shall ensure that the sureties are local, reliable and men of means."
3. The learned AAG present in the Court in some other case, was put on notice, has raised objection that section 513 Cr.P.C does not authorize the Court to demand cash security . He next contended that the applicant may be allowed time to arrange local surety .
4. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned AAG and have gone through the relevant provision of law.
5. Learned AAG appears to be right to the extent that section 513 Cr.P.C does not authorize a Court to demand cash security , however , the same can be permitted only if requested by the accused. The words "permit him to deposit" used in Section 513 Cr.P.C, are not at all without significance and suggest of a situation where something is permitted upon the request of the accused but never ordered by the Court of its own. The object of this section is to enable an accused to deposit cash security in case he is unable to find out sureties. Admittedly , the applicant does not belong to District Haripur; she is a permanent resident of Nai Abadi Moregah Rawalpindi, and does not seem to have sufficient link at Haripur , therefore, she has prayed for deposit of surety amount in cash. The request being genuine, the prayer of the applicant is accepted, and under section 513 C.P.C accused is permitted to deposit the surety amount (Rs.200,000/-) in cash. She is hereby directed to be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.200,000/- (two Lakh) with bank guarantee to be furnished for the same amount to the satisfaction of Illaqa /Duty Judicial Magistrate, Haripur .