P L D 2009 Lahore 531 (PLP)

RANA ZAHID MAHMOOD, J.

Pre-arrest bail application in case F.I.R No.20-2009 dated 23-1-2009 under sections 395, 355, 353, 186, 342, 148, 149 P.P.C. Police Station Faizabad District Nankana Sahib wherein it is alleged that petitioners while armed with fire-arms gave beating to the complainant who is Girdawar Halqa and is public servant and snatched from him Rs.100,000 cash apart from revenue documents including copies of mutations and took away mobile telephone and also put footwear around the neck of the complainant and also made him to sit on donkey cart and got his photographs grave in such a position and got him moved throughout Mandi Faizabad in disgraced position, hence this case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners have directly approached this Court and not the learned Sessions Judge Nankana Sahib due to fear of the complainant and police and submitted that petitioners have been falsely involved and submitted that petitioners moved pre-arrest bail application to the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore and Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Lahore granted them protective bail till 3-2-2009 by directing them to furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety each to the satisfaction of said Court vide order dated 24-1-2009, however the petitioners could not approach the learned Sessions Court Nankana Sahib and have directly approached this Court.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners at this preliminary stage, the petitioners are alleged to have committed grave offence by snatching public record from the public functionary Girdawar Halqa an employee of Revenue department simply because the complainant had refused to the petitioners an excess to the revenue record without lawful course and had committed the offence on 23-1-2009 allegedly at about 11-00 a.m. and then instead of moving the learned Sessions Court Nankana Sahib as the case pertains to Police Station Faizabad District Nankana Sahib the petitioners approached for pre-arrest bail to the Sessions Court Lahore for protective bail and Mr. Abdul Qayyum Khan learned Addl. Sessions Judge then allowed bail to the petitioners vide order dated 24-1-2009 till 3-2-2009 to enable them to approach the learned Sessions Court Nankana Sahib for pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000 each with one surety each to the satisfaction of said Court. Petitioners in any event even did not avail facility granted to them by learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Lahore and have come to this Court directly for pre-arrest bail.

4. Before proceeding further it is pertinent to mention that Sessions Court has got no jurisdiction to grant interim pre-arrest bail or protective bail to an accused of offence, which is registered through F.I.R outside the District where a Sessions Court is so situated. In the instant case offence is alleged to have committed within the territorial jurisdiction of District Nankana Sahib Police Station Faizabad whereas Sessions Judge Lahore or any Addl. Sessions Judge at Lahore had no jurisdiction under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. to extend interim pre-arrest bail or protective bail to an accused of such a case simply because the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court is limited to his District only and not outside. There is no denying that jurisdiction under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. is concurrent with the Sessions Court and the High Court however, the Sessions Court can exercise its jurisdiction only within its territorial jurisdiction of the District itself and not outside. A reference in this regard can be made to section 7, Cr.P.C. together with section 8, Cr.P.C. and section 9 of the said Code which are explicit in terms of territorial jurisdiction of each Sessions Division headed by Sessions Judge of a District. Section 9(4), Cr.P.C. empowers the Provincial Government to appoint a Sessions Judge of one Sessions Division as also an Addl. Sessions Judge of another Division and in such case he may sit for disposal of the cases at such place or places in either Division as Provincial Government may direct. In the instant case learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore tried to assume jurisdiction through seeking the help from section 86, Cr.P.C. and it appears that learned Addl. Sessions Judge was either totally ignorant about the scheme of law provided by legislature in the Criminal Procedure in Chapter VI or through clever device by making a simple reference to section 86, Cr.P.C. tried to usurp jurisdiction which he also knew that he did not have. Chapter VI supra deals with issuance of process to compel appearance of the accused persons or any body as the Court deems fit through issuance of summonses and warrants which incorporated through section 68 up to section 93-C, Cr.P.C. in this chapter. The second proviso to section 86, Cr.P.C. deals with a situation in terms of section 76 of the Code where warrant of arrest is issued by a Court for arrest of any person and the same Court may in its discretion direct by endorsement on the warrant that if such a person, executes a bond with sufficient sureties for the attendance before the Court at a specified time and thereafter until otherwise directed by the Court, the officer to whom the warrant is directed shall take such security and shall release such person from custody with endorsement about the number of, sureties with size of amount to surety in which they or the persons for whose arrest the warrant is issued, were to be respectively bound and the time at which he or they were to attend the Court. Section 76(3), Cr.P.C. relates to recognizance to be forwarded whenever security is taken under this section by the officer to whom the warrant is directed shall forward the bond to the Court who issued the warrant. Law on the subject shows that second proviso of section 86, Cr.P.C. was to be read subject to the provision of section 497, Cr.P.C. for release of the person on interim bail with direction to appear before the Sessions Court with specified date which issued the warrant and forward the bond to the Court. In the instant case there was no such legal exigency neither any competent Court of law had issued any warrant of arrest against the petitioner/accused with direction to police or any Court outside its jurisdiction to cause the arrest of the person or persons specified therein with endorsement as provided by section 76(2), Cr.P.C. The exercise made by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore is clear cut an instance of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in him being part of Sessions Court, Lahore serving as Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore in such a situation only jurisdiction was with the Sessions Court Nankana Sahib to grant the petitioners interim pre-arrest bail or it was with this Court to grant pre-arrest bail to the accused or set of accused person of any offence under sections 497/498, Cr.P.C. irrespective of registration of criminal case at any place in Pakistan. The exercise made by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore is strongly deprecated. A copy of this order shall be sent to Registrar of this Court for transmitting the copy of this order to all learned Sessions Judge in the Punjab to refrain from entertaining pre-arrest bail application pertaining to registration of the case outside their respective Districts including protective bail.??????????? .

5. Since the petitioners have not approached learned Sessions Court concerned since registration of the case and trying to play hide and seek with the Court and have bypassed the Sessions Court concerned therefore, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. This, petition is dismissed in limine. The petitioners may approach the Sessions Court concerned in the first instance. N.H.Q./R-15/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Pre-arrest bail refused.