P L D 1986 Lahore 16 (PLP)

(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 497‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 12‑Pre‑arrest bail‑Mala fide‑ Unless it is shown that case was male fide pre‑arrest bail cannot be granted. (f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑- ‑‑‑‑ S. 497‑Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S. 12‑Pre‑arrest bail‑Accused named in F. I. R. Medical evidence established that sodomy was committed by accused with victim, a boy of hardly 12/13 years of age Court while granting pre‑arrest bail losing sight of fact that offence committed by accused was punishable with 25 years' rigorous imprisonment and lashes‑Case of accused clearly falling within prohibitory clause, of S. 497, Cr. P. C.‑Grant of pre‑arrest bail in such a case, held, was against all cannons of administration of criminal justice‑Trial Court granting bail asked to furnish explanation for granting pre -arrest bail. Rana Abdul Majid for Petitioner. Ghulzar Ahmad and Belal Khan for the State. Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985. At the very outset, I must state, that the order, dated 9th of September, 1985, passed by Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore admitting the respondent to pre‑arrest bail is perverse. They order has been passed in disregard of the principles governing grant of pre‑arrest bail. Additional Sessions Judge has overlooked the provisions' of section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and did not care to analyse the said provisions, otherwise it would have dawned upon him that abduction and kidnapping was not a condi tion precedent for the commission of offence. Mahboob Hassan, co accused of the respondent, has taken the first informant deceitfully to a, house, where not only Mahboob Hassan but the respondent and one' Hamida also subjected the first informant for the satisfaction of their un‑natural lust.

2. In fact, the grant of bail, and that too pre‑arrest bail in this case is highly objectionable. The Additional Sessions Judge is directed, to acquaint himself with the Latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on the question of the grant of bail before arrest. The Additional Sessions Judge is reminded of the fact, that unless it is shown, that the case was mala fide the pre‑arrest bail cannot be allowed.

3. In my view, the grant of bail in such like cases breeds furthers crime and leads one of the parties to loss of confidence and faith in the system of the administration of criminal justice. That is why, the cases are not short, in which the parties have taken law into their own hands. If society is to be saved from cases, utmost care has to be exercised, while considering the question of grant or refusal of bail.

4. In this case, the respondents had been named in the F. I. R. The medical evidence establishes, that sodomy was committed with the first informant, who is hardly 12/13 years of age. Additional Sessions Judge also lost sight of the fact, that the offence was punishable with the imprisonment of 25 years' R. I. and also lashes. The case clearly falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C., therefore, in my view, the grant of pre‑arrest bail in ‑such like cases is against all cannon of the administration of justice on the criminal side.

5. Consequently the order granting pre‑arrest bail to the respondent No. 1, dated 9th of September, 1965, is hereby set aside. The respondent) shall be taken into custody forthwith. A copy of this order shall be sent to Syed Riaz Hussain Shah, Additional Sessions Judge, who would furnish his explanation in writing to this Court within a period of one week. M. B. A. Bail cancelled.