ISLAMABAD: In order to standardise the procedure whereby bail is granted to an accused summoned by trial courts on private complaints, the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan has issued guidelines to ensure uniformity in deciding bail applications.
A five-judge bench, headed by Justice Saqib Nisar, which had taken up five different appeals and petitions against different Lahore High Court (LHC) orders, decided to first resolve the legal issues involved and then settle the petitions on a case-by-case basis.
The controversy the SC sought to settle first was whether an accused summoned by a trial court on a private complaint should furnish a bond with or without sureties, under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), to ensure his future appearance before the trial court; or should the individual apply for pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the CrPC.
Section 91 deals with the power of the trial court to execute a bond with or without sureties for his appearance in the court. Section 498 empowers the court to reduce the bail amount of the accused, depending upon the circumstances of the case.
Earlier, SC had issued different judgements while deciding similar issues through verdicts in cases, such as Syed Firdaus versus the State 2005, Luqman Ali versus Hazaro 2010 and Raham Dad versus Mazhar Shah 1987. Different high courts, on several occasions, had also rendered conflicting judgements on the same issue.
Since this question had been a subject of debate in the past, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in some of the five appeals the court was hearing and sought to conclusively resolve the matter through an authoritative pronouncement. Authored by Justice Asif Khosa, the 46-page verdict divided previously reported cases into two categories.
The first category deals with situations where the superior courts have held that after being summoned by the trial court to stand trial in connection with a private complaint, the accused is required to furnish a bond, with or without sureties, under Section 91 of the CrPC, to ensure that he will appear in future hearings.
The second category deals with situations where it has been held that the accused has to apply for pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the CrPC, failing which, he/she has to be taken into custody and put in jail.
The guidelines explain that if the trial court decides to issue a summons to the accused, then the intention of the court is not to put the accused under any restraint. Rather, the court may ask the accused to execute a bond, with or without sureties, to ensure his future appearance as and when required.
If in response to the summons, the accused fails to submit the requisite bond for his future appearance to the satisfaction of the court or to provide the required sureties then the accused may be committed by the court to custody till he submits the requisite bond or provides the required sureties.
Likewise, if the process issued by a court against an accused under Section 204 of the CrPC is through a warrant, bailable or non-bailable, then the accused may be under some kind or form of restraint and therefore, he may apply for his pre-arrest bail if he so chooses, which may or may not be granted by the court depending upon the circumstances of the case.
Internews
