'The petitioner was granted post arrest bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Daska, vide his order dated 9.9.2006. The petitioner was booked in F.I.R. No. 436/06, dated 3.7.2006, under Section 489-F, PPC, registered at P.S.City Daska, District Sialkot. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to execute a bank guarantee of Rs. 3,50,000/- within 7 days as surety.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the above pre-condition on the ground that the same is not in ,consonance with the provisions of Section 497 Cr.P.C. In this regard, he relies upon 1998 SCM R 6, Mst. Afshan Bibi vs. The State.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab was noticed. He has appeared and does not oppose the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. I have heard and considered the arguments of the learned counsel. The provisions of Section 497 Cr.P.C. do not require such precondition. The provisions of Section 498, Cr.P.C. require the Court that the amount of surety bonds should not be excessive. In the State vs. Muhammad Hashim Babar, PLD 1997 Lahore 605, a Division Bench of this Court has also observed that the Court while dealing with the application under Section 497/498, Cr.P.C. has no power to insist upon deposit of cash security I in connection with the bail.
5. If Sections 497, 498 and 499, Cr.P.C. are read together, it is clear that the law contemplates the execution of a bond with sureties and neither a cash deposit nor a bank guarantee.
6. However, Section 513, Cr.P.C. mentions about deposit of a sum of money as surety in place of a surety bond, but a careful examination of Section 513, Cr.P.C. leads to the conclusion that provisions of this section are for the convenience of an accused person who has been granted pre-arrest or post arrest bail. Construction of Section 513, Cr.P.C. would be that if a petitioner makes an application, the Court may accord permission to him to deposit a sum of money or Government promissory note of such amount as the Court may fix, in lieu of executing such bonds. It seems that the said provision was enacted in the interest of persons/accused, because in some cases they may be strangers in an area where the case is registered or for some other reasons are not in a position to arrange for bail bonds or able to offer sureties. In such circumstances if a person/accused offers a cash deposit, the Court is allowed in its discretion to accept that deposit instead of insisting upon execution of a bond, however, a Court on its own accord cannot insist on the deposit of a sum of money as surety or a bank guarantee as demanded in the impugned order.
7. In view of the above reasons and discussion, the impugned order is set aside and declared contrary to the law. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Daska is directed to modify his order in right of the above discussion, the bail application shall be deemed as pending before him. With the above direction, this revision petition is allowed.