1984 P Cr (PLP)

S. 498-Bail before arrest, grant of--Trial Magistrate issuing bailable warrants of arrest tot appearance of petitioner although petitioner charged with non-bailable offences and petitioner appre hending his arrest in circumstances-Bail ad interim confirmed, in circumstances. Ashiq Hussain Malik for Petitioner. Malik Abdur Rehman for the State. The position in this case is that a complaint has been filed against the present petitioner and another under section 193/196/l97/i98/199/ 200/465/468/471/34, P. P. C., which is at present pending before the Assistant Commissioner with powers of Section 30 Magistrate, Sargodha, who had issued bailable warrants for the appearance of the petitioner despite the fact that the offence (section 468, P. P. C.) among others for which the petitioner has been charged is non-bailable. Learned counsel moved this Court, vide Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1.115-B of 1982 for the grant of pre-arrest bail but, vide order dated 23rd May, 1982 of Mr. Justice Saeed ur Rehman in that criminal miscellaneous the petitioner was directed to first move a petition for pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court. In compliance with this order he moved the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who dismissed the application vide his order dated 9th June, 1982 observing that the petitioner had been sum moned through bailable warrant of arrest in the sum of Rs. 5,000 for 9th May,, 1982 in order to secure the attendance of the petitioner in the trial Court. The Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to dismiss the application by stating that it did not lie against any order of the Assistant Commissioner and that if the petitioner deemed it fit he should approach the Assistant Commissioner for this purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the petitioner was to appear before the Assistant Commissioner (trial Court), the offence, of which he is charged, being non-bailable, he would order that the petitioner be given into the custody of the police and, therefore, the petitioner would be arrested. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner cannot move for pre-arrest bail before the trial Court as it has no power to grant that relief. It is then argued that initially in a non-bailable offence, when the Assistant Commissioner issued bailable warrant of arrest to summon the petitioner, the order was wrong. He should have summoned the petitioner through non-bailable warrant of arrest so that he could have moved the superior Courts for the grant of anticipatory bail for appearing before the Assistant Commissioner. In this connection learned counsel placed reliance on Amir Kalam Khan v. Superintendent, Central Jail and another (P L D 1975 Lah. 1390). There is substance in the argument of learned counsel. The petitioner is prepared to appear before the trial Court in connection with the complaint case pending before it, but he is afraid that the offence of which he is charged being non-bailable, he would be arrested. He has, therefore, approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail. In the light of what has been discussed above, the pre-arrest bail already allowed in favour of the petitioner is hereby confirmed. He should appear before the Assistant Commissioner in the complaint case on the 4th of July, 1982 alongwith the copy of this order and the Assistant Commissioner is hereby directed to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible. With these observations this petition is disposed of. 2. A copy of this order should be given dasti to the petitioner on payment of usual charges. S.G.D. Bail confirmed.