Peshawar High Court
Mst Safeena Shah Vs The State
- Case
- CM No. 974-A of 2020 in Cr.M(B.A) No. 884-A of 2020
- Type
- Criminal
- Length
- 3 pages
Summary from the court's website
Section 513 of Cr.PC provided that if accused made an application the court might accord permission to accused to deposit a sum of money or bank guarantee or even promissory note of such amount as court might fix in lieu of executing such bonds. S.513 seem to be exacted in interest of accused who could be stronger in an area where case was registered against her/him. Court do have discretion to allow.
Full judgment
Official copyPESHAWAR HIGH COURT, ABBOTTABAD BENCH
ORDER SHEET
Date of Order of Order or other Proceedings with Signature of Judge. Proceedings
22.10.2020 Cr.M No.974-A/2020 in Cr.M (BA)No.884-A/2020 Present: Mr. Amir Sattar Tanoli, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Sardar Muhammad Asif, AAG, for the State.
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.
Announced.
Dt.22.10.2020.
JUDGE
M.Saleem/PS* (SB) (Mr. Justice Shekel Ahmad)
Text extracted from the court's PDF and reflowed for reading. The court's official copy is authoritative.
Similar judgments
Closest in subject matter, from every court in the library.
- Peshawar High Court · 2021 YLR 1135 · 12 Oct 2020 Mst. Safeena Shah Vs The State
- Peshawar High Court · 2014 YLR 663 · 29 Aug 2013 Mst. Muhmadia vs State
- Lahore High Court · 2021 LHC 1189 · 8 Feb 2021 Maqbool Ahmad vs State etc.
- Sindh High Court · 2024 SHC KHI 1047 · 23 Jul 2024 Mst. Yasmeen W/o Zulfiqar Ali (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)
- Peshawar High Court · 2018 PCrLJ 1322 · 31 Jan 2018 Muhammad Faisal Shah VS State & another