Admits that he had stood surety for one Muhammad Azam alias Shama who stood accused of murder vide FTR No.40 dated 18-4-1991 of P.S., Jhawrian of District Sargodha and had undertaken to make the said accused person available to the Court on every date of hearing and had further undertaken to pay Rs.50,000 to the State in case he failed to. Honour this commitment.
2. -From the copies of the impugned order and the orders. Preceding the same, it appears that the petitioner was, on his own request, given opportunities to produce the accused person and it was on his failure to honour his undertaking that a notice was issued to him which notice he had replied and it was thereafter that the impugned order was passed.
3. Placing reliance on PLD 1%3 SC 47 and 1986 PCr.1J 2028, the learned counsel contends that the amount of bond forfeited by the learned trial Court was on the higher side and deserved to be reduced.
4. The bond was in the amount of Rs.50,000 and only half of the said amount had been forfeited by the Court. I rind nothing wrong with the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in the conditions presently prevalent in the Courts of law. It-may be mentioned here that during the course of one of my inspections of the District Courts at Lahore, it had come to my notice that 21.000 under-trial prisoners were missing/absconding from the said Courts after being admitted to bail. This extraordinary situation can be handled only through extraordinary measures.
5.Consequently, I rind no justification to interfere with the impugned order. This petition is therefore dismissed in limine.
6. But before I part with this order, I must observe that I was shocked to notice that the learned trial Court i.e. Court presided over by Mr. Riaz-ul--Hassan AM, an A.S.J. At Sargodha had admitted the above-named accused person, namely, Muhammad Azam alias Shama, to bail in a murder case only on the ground that his father had died.
7. The Courts may be reminded that they have no powers to release accused persons on bail, which includes interim bail, except the powers which are specifically conferred on them by the law contained in section 497 and section 498, Cr.P.C. The exercise of powers through transgression of the said provisions is an encroachment by the concerned Court on the limits of law prescribed for them. Needless to mention that death of any near one is no ground provided in the said two provisions of law for release of accused persons on bail.
9. While deprecating the manner, above-noticcd, in which the learned trial Court exercised its purported jurisdiction, I must remind all the subordinate Courts that they are clothed with no authority to admit accused persons to bail on grounds, howsoever compassionate they may be, if the same are not covered by the specific provisions of law regulating the subject. The precedents, if any, of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, would also not confer any such authority on them because the subordinate Courts do not possess powers which are enjoyed by the Superior Courts under Art.186 of the Constitution and section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Respectively.
9. Copies of this order shall be sent to the learned Sessions -Judge of Sargodha and to Mr. Riaz-ul- Hassan Alvi, the learned A.S.J. At Sargodha.
M.B.A./U-7/1,