MULTAN: District and Sessions Judge Muhammad Akmal Khan directed all of the judges working under his supervision that no bail petition should be adjourned on account of non-production of record while no bond was required as a proof of ownership of immovable asset for court surety.

In his guidelines, through his order to all the judicial officers posted in the district, copies of which were also forwarded to all the bar associations of the district, the judge stated that disposal of the bail petitions, particularly the post-arrest bail petitions, kept on lingering due to non-production of the record or non-service of the complainant.

“It is also unfortunate to note that submission of bail bonds made a gigantic, insurmountable and expensive task for the litigants even in cases if the petty nature and first offenders. There are numerous complaints in respect of bribing the court staff for acceptance of bail bonds and encouraging and using the tout mafia for submission of fake bail bonds. Numerous irregularities regarding verification and entry of the bail bonds have also been noticed. It is also pathetic to note that this important task has been assigned by the presiding officers to the court staff which, in most of the cases, has provided them the opportunity to grease their palms from the litigant public,” he stated.

Mr Khan directed that the court should get its order of production of record complied with, without fail, and in case the court seized with the bail petition was unable and felt handicapped to procure the record, the focal person of the Multan city police officer would immediately be informed in early hours of the day and, if needed, the matter would be brought into his notice by the judge concerned.

Terming the non-service of the complainant in connection with the bail petition another hurdle in the timely disposal of the petition, Mr Khan directed that besides issuing notices to the complainant, the Naib Court/Ahlmad would make a phone call to the complainant whose cell number was available in the FIR itself while he would also put a note on the margin of the order sheet while the court concerned would ensure issuance of notice and service of the complainant and would not adjourn the case.

The judged directed that no bail bond would be required to be accompanied by a proof of immovable asset of a surety, e.g. registered sale deed, fard Jamabandi etc.

“The court, while granting a bail, shall specifically mention in the order that the bail bond need not be accompanied by any such proof. Preference shall be given to the close relative of an accused to become surety by mentioning his moveable asset in the bail bonds and the court staff and the learned presiding officer concerned shall ensure the same. No court staff, in absence of specific written direction, from the court shall insist upon the bail bonds to be accompanied by proof of ownership of immovable asset of a surety. In case some unscrupulous element/tout is accepted as surety, the staff of the court concerned shall be responsible for it and shall also be proceeded against under the law,” he stated.

Published in Dawn, November 24th, 2021