This revision petition arises out of the order dated 21st January, 1989 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali, whereby he allowed bail to the petitioner but imposed certain conditions thereto.
2. The petitioner is an accused person in the case registered vide F.I.R. No. 125 dated 13th November, 1988 at P.S. Wan Bachran, under Articles 10 and 16 of Ordinance No. VII of 1979. She was arrested and confined in the judicial lock up, Mianwali. She was allowed bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his order dated 21st January, 1989 subject to her furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.
20,000 with two sureties, each in the like amount with the following conditions:-- (1)The sureties shall be persons related to the accused/petitioner within the prohibitory degree.
(2)In case no person from the prohibitory degree comes forward to furnish the bonds, the accused/petitioner shall be transferred to Darul-Aman Sargodha till further orders:'
3. The learned counsel sumits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge grossly erred in law in attaching conditions in the bail order regarding the sureties to be furnished by the petitioner.
Placing reliance on the case of Mst. Manzoor Bibi v. The state now reported as 1988 PCr.LJ 564. The learned counsel submits that the choice of the sureties lay entirely with the petitioner and that the Court was not competent to direct that certain type of sureties should be furnished. In the precedent case, it was held as under:-- "An accused person has a right to furnish surety of his own choice and under the law he cannot be compelled to produce particular person as his surety."
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has merely pointed out that the petitioner was involved in two similar cases earlier, one registered vide F.I.R. No. 169 dated 20th December, 1987 and the other vide F.I.R. No. 214 dated 7th June, 1988. As in the order of the Court below, the petitioner was acquitted in the case registered vide F.I.R. 169, while the other case registered vide F.I.R. No. 214 was found to be false and got cancelled by the prosecution. The mere fact that two cases were earlier registered against the petitioner is hardly sufficient to justify the imposition of conditions by the Court. The petitioner has the right to produce solvent sureties of her own choice. It is, of course, for the Court to accept or reject the sureties in the light of their credentials and financial position.
However, it is not open to the Court to lay down in the bail order as to what type. And kind of sureties be furnished by an accused person. The imposition of such like conditions tends to frustrate the bail order itself.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this revision petition is allowed and the two conditions mentioned in the end of the bail order are set aside. The petitioner shall be released on her furnishing bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali.
SA./N-261 /L.