IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD 
MR. JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1251 OF 2022 
(Against the order dated 29.08.2022 passed by Islamabad 
High Court, Islamabad in Crl. Misc. No.1013-B-2022) 
 
 
Javed Iqbal 
...Petitioner 
Versus 
 
The State through D.A.G., Islamabad & 
another 
 
…Respondents 
 
For the petitioner  
: 
Mr. Adil Aziz Qazi, ASC. 
Sheikh Mehmood Ahmed, ASC. 
 
 
 
For the respondents 
 
: 
Raja 
Shafqat 
Abbasi, 
Deputy 
Attorney 
General Pakistan. 
 
Faisal, I.O FIA. 
(for the State) 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
01.11.2022 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD, J:  Petitioner, Javed Iqbal was arrested 
in case FIR No.27/19 dated 19.09.2019 for the offences under sections 
13/14 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA, 2016) read 
with sections 420, 468, 471 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 
(PPC) registered at Police Station F.I.A, Cyber Crime Reporting Centre, 
Islamabad. He approached the Special Court established under the PECA, 
2016, for his release on bail but his application was dismissed vide order 
dated 07.07.2022 by the Judge, Prevention of Electronic Crime Court, 
Islamabad. He approached the High Court through Criminal Misc. 
No.1013-B of 2022 for grant of post-arrest bail, which vide impugned order 
dated 29.08.2022 was allowed, subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in 
the sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the 
satisfaction of the trial Court. The petitioner was, however, further directed 
to deposit Rs.3.5 million in the trial Court. Although the petitioner has been 
granted bail but due to the condition of depositing of Rs.3.5 million in the 
Crl.P.1251/2022 
2
trial Court, he is still lying in the jail; hence, this petition for leave to 
appeal.     
2. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is 
aggrieved of the impugned order for the reason that despite grant of bail by 
the High Court the petitioner is still lying in the jail because while granting 
bail to him, the High Court not only asked him to furnish bail bonds in the 
sum of Rs.500,000/- with one surety but also directed him to deposit 
Rs.3.5 million in the trial Court, which according to learned counsel is not 
permissible under the law. Further contends that the High Court assumed 
that the amount of Rs.3.5 million is admitted by the petitioner but the fact 
of the matter is that the said amount is denied by the petitioner, and that 
the High Court has itself observed in the impugned order that all other 
questions could only be resolved during the course of trial but illegally 
imposed the condition of deposit of Rs.3.5 million. In this regard the 
learned counsel relied upon various judgments of this Court. 
3. 
On the other hand, learned DAG contends that although this is a 
legal position that no such condition can be imposed by the Court while 
granting bail but according to him, the petitioner has admitted his liability, 
therefore, such a direction was not illegal.  
4. 
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Deputy 
Attorney General and perused the record with their able assistance. The 
only question for consideration before us is as to whether the Court while 
granting bail to an accused can impose any other condition or not. In case 
the Court considers it expedient to release an accused on bail during 
pendency of trial, it can certainly require him to execute a bond, either 
personally or through sureties, setting an amount therein having regard to 
the facts and circumstances of each case.  
 
In order to ensure future attendance, the accused is required to 
submit bail bond under section 499 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1898 (the Code) and while asking the accused to submit sureties, the 
Court is not required to impose any condition upon the accused for further 
depositing of money. In case of default or non-appearance in Court, the 
Court may proceed to forfeit such bail bond under section 514 of the Code.  
 
When the Court comes to a conclusion that an accused is entitled to 
be released on bail then of course such bail granting order cannot be 
subjected to riders and conditions. While admitting to an accused person 
on bail, actually he is released from the custody of the authorized 
officer/judicial lockup of the Court and his custody is entrusted to a person 
known as his surety, who is bound to produce him in Court at a specific 
Crl.P.1251/2022 
3
time and place to answer the charge against him. Even no condition can be 
imposed upon an accused person in order to desist him from the repetition 
of the offence. This Court, since the year 1963 till date, has dis-approved 
the imposition of any condition while granting bail to an accused person as 
section 499 of the Code, under which bail bonds are submitted in the 
Court, is very much clear that bail bonds are sufficient for release of a 
person/accused. In this regard reliance may be placed on the case of Mian 
Mahmud Ali Qasuri and others v. The State (PLD 1963 SC 478), wherein 
the question for consideration before this Court was whether a Criminal 
Court while granting bail could incorporation in the bail bond a condition 
other than any of the conditions mentioned in section 499 of the Code. This 
Court after relying upon “Concise Law Dictionary” observed that an accused 
person is said, at common law, to be admitted to bail, when he is released 
from the custody of the officers of the Court and is entrusted to the custody 
of persons known as his sureties, who are bound to produce him to answer, 
at a specified time and place, the charge against him and who in default of 
so doing are liable to forfeit such sum as is specified when bail is granted. 
The Court also considered the provisions of Sections 497, 499 and 500 of 
the Code and observed that under Section 497 ibid, an accused of a non-
bailable offence can also be released on bail or on execution of a bond for 
his presence. As per Section 500 ibid, as soon as the bond has been 
executed, the accused shall be released. It was finally held that it seems 
fairly clear on the language employed by Section 499 ibid that such a 
condition cannot be incorporated in a bail or surety bond itself.  
 
In the case of Faizur Rahman Sarkar v. The State and 2 others 
(1970 SCMR 175), it was reiterated that a person admitted to bail cannot be 
subjected to the condition that he shall desist from the repetition of the 
offence with which he is charged. It was further held that when bail was 
granted to the accused not as a mean of enforcing recovery of fine, but on 
its own merits, then that order could not be made dependent on the 
payment of fine. 
 
In the case of Mst. Afshan Bibi v. The State (1998 SCMR 6), where 
the State counsel could not point out any case-law to show that the High 
Court is authorized to impose condition on the release of the accused on 
bail, this Court observed that it is well-settled that the accused person can 
be released on bail on the strength of surety to be provided by him.  
 
In the case of Saeed Zaman v. The State and another (2020 
SCMR 1855) it was held that law on the grant or refusal of bail in 
criminal cases is well settled, in that, the regime is an interlocutory 
arrangement to ensure physical presence of an accused so as to confront 
Crl.P.1251/2022 
4
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 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. In case the Court consider it expedient to 
release an accused on bail pending conclusion of 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.  
 
In the case of Jehanzeb Khan v. The State through A.G. Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa and others (2020 SCMR 1268) it was held that the Court 
may decline the request for bail, considering the facts and circumstances 
of each case, even in cases falling outside the ambit of prohibition, 
however, the corporal coercion cannot be allowed to extract swift 
settlements or concessions in lieu of a promised freedom. Grant of bail 
cannot be subjected to riders and conditions, if otherwise, a case stands 
made out. In criminal dispensation of justice, the Court being an 
independent adjudicator at all stages must religiously maintain its 
neutrality without having any responsibility to the either side. 
 
In the case of Maqbool Ahmed Mahessar and others v. National 
Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and others (2021 
SCMR 1166) where the accused were admitted to pre-arrest bails in 
different NAB references with a direction to furnish deposits equivalent 
to the amounts allegedly embezzled by them, this Court held that such a 
direction for release of an accused on bail has been held by this Court as 
ultra vires in many judgments. An accused seeking bail desires transfer 
of his custody from Superintendent of the Jail, where he is confined, to 
his surety who undertakes his production as and when required by the 
Court and for that he has to make out a case in accordance with the law 
applicable thereto; he cannot be allowed or required to barter his 
freedom.  
5. 
 
The crux of the above case-law is that: 
(a) 
in terms of section 499 of the Code the Court cannot require 
an undertaking from an accused person before granting bail 
to desist from the repetition of the offence with which he is 
charged, as a condition precedent to the grant of bail; such a 
Crl.P.1251/2022 
5
condition cannot be incorporated in a bail or surety bond 
itself;  
(b) 
when bail is granted to an accused not as a mean of enforcing 
recovery of fine, but on its own merits, the same could not be 
made dependent on the payment of fine; any such condition 
would amount to curtail his liberty, for which he otherwise is 
entitled;   
(c) 
grant of bail cannot be subjected to riders and conditions, if 
otherwise, a case stands made out; and 
(d) 
an accused seeking bail, after submitting bail bond through 
sureties, desire transfer of his custody to his sureties who 
undertake his production as and when required by the 
Court and for that he has to make out a case in accordance 
with the law applicable thereto; he cannot be allowed or 
required to barter his freedom, and imposing any condition 
other than submission of sureties would be against the 
dictum laid down by this Court. 
Thus, the contention of learned DAG and the approach of the learned High 
Court is not in accordance with the dictum laid down by this Court, 
referred above.   
6. 
In view of the above, the High Court wrongly and without any legal 
backing had imposed the condition of depositing of Rs.3.5 million besides 
the surety bonds, thus, while converting this petition into an appeal, the 
same is allowed. Consequently, the condition imposed by the High Court of 
depositing of Rs.3.5 million in the trial Court is set-aside and the order of 
granting post-arrest bail to the appellant, subject to his furnishing bail 
bonds of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees five hundred thousand) with one surety is 
maintained.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Islamabad, the 
01.11.2022 
M.Saeed/** 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE  
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
Crl.P.1251/2022 
6
 
 
 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING