1997 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Amir Muhammad Joya for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 31st October, 1995. This petition under section 439, Cr.P.C. has been filed to assail the validity of the order, dated 31-8-1995 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mianwali.

2. Brief facts are that respondent No.2 was involved in a case under sections 324/382/436/452/148 and 149, P.P.C. vide F.I.R. No.75 Police Station, Daud Khel, District Mianwali; he was granted interim bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order, dated 6-7-1995; the case after two dates thereafter came up for hearing on 31-8-1995 on which date the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that as the matter is pending before the High Court in Intra-Court Appeal seeking quashment of the F.I.R., as such, it was not proper to dispose of the bail petition and the petition was adjourned to 21-9-1995; the order-sheet shows that after the case was adjourned and the accused-respondent No.4 went out of the Court-room and was in the Verandah when Inspector Ejaz Hussain/S.H.O. Police Station Daud Khel caught hold of him; handed over to his subordinates; the accused raised hue and cry; unpleasant situation arose; Police Officer was summoned; show-cause notice issued; and the Police Officer was directed not to arrest the accused-respondent No.4 in any case in the Sessions Court premises.

3. Learned counsel submits that the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge observing that the Inspector is directed not to arrest the petitioner (respondent No.4) in any case in the Sessions Court premises is perverse, illegal and manifestly unjust. According to the learned counsel, this is a case of acting beyond jurisdiction. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have gone through the file with care. There is no denying the fact that the police is duty-bound to apprehend the culprits but not at the cost of the lowering the dignity and honour of the Court in public eyes. The order-sheet shows that the Police Officer intentionally tried to lower the dignity of the Court in apprehending the respondent No.2 from the Verandah of the Court; he should have acted with patience and allowed him to go out of the Court premises. The Police Officer; it appears, instead of doing his duty to arrest the accused by himself taking pain, selected the Sessions Court to be a fit place to show his efficiency. It may be observed that the tendency of lowering the Court's honour by raising slogans and incidents of firing and murder has gained alarming situation which tendency needs to be curbed with iron hand. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that there is nothing illegal j in the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge so as to justify interference in revisional jurisdiction. It is noteworthy that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not forbidden the police to arrest the accused respondent but the order is clear that he shall not be arrested in any case in Court premises. The police is, therefore, at liberty to arrest the accused-respondent in any case in which he has not been granted bail. With these observations, the revision petition stands disposed. N.H.Q./M-188/L Revision disposed of.