Mst. MANZOORAN BIBI vs THE STATE
This criminal revision petition challenges a condition imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakpattan, in an order granting post-arrest bail to the petitioner, Mst. Manzooran Bibi, who was accused of an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. While granting bail, the trial court mandated that the surety provided by the accused must be within the prohibitory degree. The core legal question was whether a court has the authority to impose such a restrictive condition regarding the relationship of the surety when granting bail. The High Court held that the condition was legally unsustainable and contrary to established judicial precedents. Relying on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mst. Afshan Bibi v. The State (1998 SC.M.R 6), the Court affirmed that an accused person is entitled to be released on bail upon furnishing a surety of their own choice, without the court imposing arbitrary restrictions on the identity or relationship of the surety. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed, and the impugned condition was set aside.
- Can a court impose a condition that a surety must be within the prohibitory degree when granting bail?
- Is an accused person entitled to provide a surety of their own choice when released on bail?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979
' The facts leading to the present revision petition are that Mst. Manzodran Bibi-petitioner was implicated as accused in a case F.I.R. No, 374 of 2001 registered on 15-7-2001 at Police Station Saddar, Pakpattan Sharif, for an offence under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner along with others applied for her post-arrest bail, which was heard and decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakpattan, vide order dated 3- 9-2001.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakpattan, granted bail to the petitioner, subject to her tendering bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000 with one surety but imposed the condition, "subject to the condition that surety should be within prohibitory degree." Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
4. Admittedly, no such condition could be imposed vis-a-vis the surety while deciding bail application. The abovementioned condition imposed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is clearly against the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Afshan Bibi v. The State (1998 SC.M.R 6), wherein it was held: "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."
5. The learned A.A.-G. Has conceded the legal proposition involved in the instant case.
6. In this view of the matter, this revision is allowed with modification in the sentence "subject to the condition that surety should be within prohibitory degree", which shall be read that "the petitioner may be released on bail on the strength of surety, to be provided by her", in the order dated 3-9- 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakpattan.
Revision Allowed /