Islamabad:
The Supreme Court has described when the higher courts can cancel the deposit, adding that the deposit is not an unqualified right and can be withdrawn, if it is poorly used.
In a three -page order in a case related to the cancellation of the deposit, the SC noted that the scope of the interference to be made by the SC in its competence on appeal in terms of cancellation of the deposit is well settled and barely needing reiteration.
According to the ordinance, written by judge Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, the deposit, although a concession granted to guarantee the freedom of an undergoing lawsuit, is not an unskilled right.
He said that the law recognizes that the surety can be canceled if the accused, after obtaining the release, engages in a conduct which undermines the administration of justice.
These reasons include attempts to influence or intimidate witnesses, to falsify evidence, to commit another infraction on bond or to violate the conditions imposed by the court.
“In addition, if the accused does not appear before the court without just cause, or if new facts are revealed which considerably modify the basis of the release on bond, the court can rightly revoke the concession.”
According to the ordinance, the principal principle remains that the freedom of an individual must be balanced against the need to ensure a fair trial and maintain public confidence in the judicial system.
He noted that during the examination of an order for granting liberation under deposit for the purposes of cancellation, the court generally interferes when the liberation order under deposit is perverse at first glance, or when the deposit was granted in clear contempt for a principle of the law of the surety.
“A perverse order is that which has been adopted against the weight of the material on the file or ignoring such material or without reasons; such an order is also called arbitrary, whimsical and capricious,” he said.
The order indicates one of the basic principles of the bond law that the courts must not engage in the exercise of a deeper assessment of the material available at the deposit stage.
“”[They] It is only to determine temporarily, by examining this material, whether or not there are “reasonable reasons” to believe that the accused is guilty of the alleged offense, “he added.
