IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
Mr. Justice Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed 
  
 
Criminal Petition Nos.654 of 2020 
(Against the order dated 1.6.2020 passed by the 
Islamabad High Court Islamabad in C.M. No.137/2020 in 
Crl. Misc. No.689-B/2020) 
 
 
Saeed Zaman 
 
.…Petitioner(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
The State & another 
  
….Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
 
Mr. Riffat Saghiry Kureshy, ASC 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti 
 
Addl. Attorney General along with 
 
Qaiser Masood, Ad. Dir. (L) 
 
Fazal Mabood, I.O. 
 
Mr. Qaisar Imam Ch. AD (L)  
 
Date of hearing: 
07.08.2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
ORDER 
 
  
Qazi Muhammad Amin Ahmed, J.- Saeed Zaman, petitioner, 
is amongst the array of accused, allegedly involved in a massive financial 
scam wherein, after his arrest, he attempted for bail; in the wake of 
dismissal of his motion in the Court of Session, he moved the Islamabad 
High Court for bail vide Crl. Misc. No.682-B of 2019, however, it was 
dismissed withdrawn on 12.11.2019. Undeterred by his previous failure, 
the petitioner once again moved the High Court through Crl. Misc. No. 
689-B of 2020 when a learned Judge-in-Chamber vide order dated 
20.5.2020, earlier dismissal notwithstanding, granted him bail, however, 
with a formidable rider in terms of a direction to deposit Rs.5.16 million, 
the amount allegedly siphoned off by him, with the Court, besides 
furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- with one surety. As the 
petitioner failed to arrange the amount, he moved the Court through C.M. 
No.137/2020 seeking exemption from the cash deposit, a request declined 
vide impugned order dated 01.06.2020.  
  
  
 
2
 2. 
 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the 
learned Judge-in-Chamber felt persuaded to release the petitioner on bail, 
imposition of a condition, compliance whereof is beyond his financial 
capacity, would tantamount to withhold the benefit of relief, otherwise held 
as extendable. It is next argued that the impugned condition being alien to 
law merits interference by this Court.  The learned Law Officer has 
contested the plea. 
3. 
 
Heard. Record perused. 
4. 
 
Law on the grant or refusal of bail in criminal cases is by now 
clearly contoured and well settled, the regime is an interlocutory 
arrangement to ensure physical presence of an accused so as to confront 
the indictment pending conclusion of the trial, either under judicial custody 
or with a surety to produce him before the Court as and when required. In 
the non-bailable category of offences, grant of bail in crimes punishable 
with imprisonment of less than 10 years, presumably with charges on the 
lower side of gravity scale, the release of accused, after conclusion of 
investigation is a rule, however, even in appropriate cases, the Court may 
still validly decline the concession. In offences punishable with death or for 
imprisonment for 10 years or above, the accused cannot be released on bail 
unless he succeeds in making out a case calling for further probe. In the 
event of his release on bail, the Court may require an accused to execute a 
bond either personally or through sureties amount whereof “shall be fixed 
with due regard to the circumstances of the case, and shall not be excessive.” 
The bond by the accused or the sureties, as the case may be, has to be 
executed to ensure compliance, contemplated by section 499 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure 1898 (‘the Code’), reproduced below for ready 
reference: 
“Bond of accused and sureties.-(1) Before any person 
is released on bail or released on his own bond, a bond 
for such sum of money as the police-officer or Court, as 
the case may be, thinks sufficient shall be executed by 
such person, and, when he is released on bail, by one 
or more sufficient sureties conditioned that such person 
shall attend at the time and place mentioned in the 
bond, and shall continue so to attend otherwise directed 
by the police officer or Court, as the case may be. 
 
(2) If the case so require, the bond shall also 
bind the person released on bail to appear when called 
upon at the High Court, Court of Session or other Court 
to answer the charge.” 
The survey of above provisions clearly demonstrates that in case the Court 
consider it expedient to release an accused on bail pending conclusion of 
  
  
 
3
his trial, it can certainly require him to execute a bond either personally or 
through sureties, setting conscionable amounts therein, having regard to 
the facts and circumstances of each case with a view to ensure future 
attendance and may proceed to forfeit such bond in the event of 
default/non-compliance as contemplated by section 514 of the Code. The 
Code does not envisage cash deposit except for an undertaking for good 
behavior within the framework of section 513 thereof. 
 
The above interlocutory arrangement cannot be equated with the 
final adjudication of a criminal case, to be essentially settled on the 
strength of evidence with all procedural safeguards to conveniently enable 
the accused to vindicate his position without any embarrassment and 
during pendency of the process, he can secure interim freedom only if a 
case for his release is made out and in such eventuality, he cannot be 
additionally coerced to surrender or deposit amounts, forfeiture or 
settlement whereof is consequent upon final adjudication, that too, subject 
to the law. The statutory arrangements detailed above are founded on the 
paramount principle of equality before law as well as equal protection 
thereof; protection and equality that are not shadowed by the divergent 
financial capacities of different accused, otherwise found entitled to 
freedom, interim or ultimate, without strings.  
5. 
 
For the above reasons, we have not been able to persuade 
ourselves 
to 
uphold 
the 
imposition 
of 
the 
impugned 
condition. 
Consequently, petition is converted into appeal and allowed, as a result 
whereof, order dated 20.05.2020 by the Islamabad High Court is set aside. 
Petitioner’s plea for bail shall be deemed as pending before the High Court 
for decision afresh in accordance with law on the available grounds.  
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
7th August, 2020 
Not approved for reporting 
Azmat/- 
 
 
 
 
