Shahid Aslam vs The State
This criminal appeal arises from the refusal of post-arrest bail to the petitioner, who was initially booked for issuing a dishonoured bank cheque and had earlier secured pre-arrest bail by undertaking before the High Court to pay the complainant, which undertaking he subsequently failed to honour, leading to his re-arrest. The core legal question was whether pre-arrest bail can be denied or conditioned upon financial settlements and undertakings to complainants, and whether subsequent default warrants continued incarceration when the alleged offence does not attract the statutory prohibitory clause. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that a court is a neutral arbiter owing responsibility to the law alone and cannot use bail proceedings to secure financial recoveries or allow a party to barter their freedom, and that established parameters for pre-arrest bail must be followed faithfully. The Court laid down the principle that criminal courts must decide bail matters strictly on legal parameters rather than acting as a recovery forum for financial disputes.
- Can a court condition the grant of bail upon financial undertakings made by an accused to a complainant?
- Whether the failure to honour a financial settlement before a court justifies the denial of post-arrest bail when the statutory prohibitory clause does not apply?
- Is it permissible for a court to act as a recovery forum in criminal proceedings?
ORDER
QAZI M UHAM M AD AM IN AHM ED, J. Shahid Aslam, petitioner herein, was earlier booked by Green Town police Lahore for issuing a bank cheque in sum of rupees 7 million, bounced upon presentation. It is in this backdrop that he settled the issue by issuing another cheque in favour of the complainant before a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court Lahore, in consequence whereof, he was admitted to anticipatory bail vide order dated 11.8.2014; the second cheque also failed upon presentation, bringing him back once again behind the bars on 14.6.2021.
2. Chequered successive failures, notwithstanding, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner had cleared up substantial portion of his liability, a position though contested at the bar, nonetheless, confirmed by Bilal Mehmood Sulehri, Assistant Superintendent of Police.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. Be that as it may, what appears to have weighed with the learned Judge-in-Chamber to deny post-arrest bail to the petitioner is his failure to recompense the complainant, a pledge that he made before the Court, in lieu whereof, he was extended extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail. The arrangement, seemingly under the sword of democles fails to commend our approval, inasmuch as, the Court being a neutral arbiter owed responsibility to none except the law.
Parameters for grant of pre-arrest bail, by now, are authoritatively well settled, to be followed faithfully and, thus, there was no space to be allocated to the petitioner to barter his freedom, in derogation thereof; petitioner's unenviable conduct, notwithstanding, nonetheless, does not alter the above juridical position.
Charged with an offence that does not attract the statutory bar, the petitioner is in custody since 14.6.2021, continuation whereof, is not likely to serve any useful purpose preceding final adjudication; as case for his release on bail stands made out. Criminal Petition is converted into appeal and allowed; the petitioner/appellant is admitted to bail on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.