(Mst.) AFSHAN BIBI vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that granted bail to the petitioner, Mst. Afshan Bibi, in a case registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979, but imposed a specific condition requiring the bail bonds to be furnished by her father. The petitioner challenged this condition, arguing that the High Court lacked the competence to impose such a restrictive requirement, particularly given her apprehension of danger from her father and her desire to be lodged in a Dar-ul-Aman. The Supreme Court held that the High Court is not authorized to impose such restrictive conditions on bail bonds. The Court affirmed the principle that an accused person is entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing surety of their own choice. Consequently, the Court modified the bail order, allowing the petitioner to furnish surety of her choice in the amount originally directed, thereby allowing the appeal.
- Is the High Court competent to impose a condition requiring a specific person to furnish bail bonds for an accused?
- Can an accused person be released on bail upon furnishing surety of their own choice?
- Does the court have the authority to restrict the choice of surety when granting bail?
- Section 10, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979
- Section 11, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979
RAJA AFRASAIB KHAN, J.- On 16th of May, 1997. An order was passed by a Learned Judge of the Lahore High Court. It reads as follows:- "Bail was granted to the petitioner Afshah Bibi in a case registered against her under the provision of section 10 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979. Vide order of this Court. Dated 2nd of May. 1997 and a condition was imposed that she will only be released on furnishing bail bonds by her father. Through this application, it is submitted that the said condition be removed so that she can live with someone else. I am afraid that the aforesaid condition cannot be removed. Hence, this application is dismissed."
This petition for lease to appeal has been instituted by the petitioner against the impugned order.
2. Learned counsel argues that the High Court is not competent to impose condition on the bail bonds which are required to be furnished by the petitioner for her release.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State is unable to point out any case-law to show that the High Court is authorized to impose condition on the release of the petitioner on bail. It is well-settled that the accused person can be released on bail on the strength of surety to be provided by him/her, Learned counsel has also stated that the petitioner has expressed her desire to be lodged in local Daral Aman. She also apprehends danger at the hands of her father. This being so. We modify the aforesaid bail granting order and say that the petitioner shall be released on furnishing surety of her choice in the same amount as directed by the High Court. With the above modification, this petition is convened into appeal and allowed.