P L D 1973 Lahore 643 (PLP)

(2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A question, therefore, arose if the Central Government had passed any order under sub-rule (1) requiring that no one Bengali on or otherwise shall leave Pakistan without previous permission of the Government. Mr. Ijaz All, the learned Officer on Special Duty of the Advocate-General's Department produced before me a copy of the Government's Order No. 1/5/71-Pass (Int)-11, dated 1-11-1972, which reads as follows:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-rule (1) of rule 31 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, the Federal Government is pleased to order that no East Pakistani, whether by birth or by domicile, who is not in possession of a No-objection Certificate from the Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan shall proceed from Pakistan to any destination outside Pakistan except under the authority of, and in the manner specified in, a written permit granted by the Interior Division, Government of Pakistan or the Home Department of a Provincial Government, and recorded on the passport of each such person in the form set out in the table below: TABLE No.__________________________ Date____________________________ Mr./Mrs./Miss.__________________________________________________ s/o, w/o, d/o____________________________________________________ holder of this passport is permitted to leave Pakistan with_____________children. Signed." He also referred me to rule 198 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, which reads as follows:- "

198. Attempts, etc., to contravene the rules.‑--Any person who attempts to contravene, or abets, or attempts to abet, or does any act preparatory to a contravention of any of the provisions of these rules or of any order made thereunder, shall be deemed to have contravened that provision, or as the case may be, that order." It is clear from a reading of the two rules i.e. rule 31(1) and rule 198, together with the order reproduced above, that the peti tioners are guilty of an offence of contravening, abetting or attempting to abet the contravention of the aforementioned order passed under rule 31(1) of the D.‑fence of Pakistan Rules. The next question is as to whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the grant of bail. The rule governing the grant of ball under the Defence of Pakistan Rules is rule 210, which read' as follows:-

210. Special provision regarding bail.‑--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code no person accused or convicted of a contravention of these rules or orders made thereunder, if in custody, be released on bail or on own bond, unless‑ (a) the prosecution has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (b) where the prosecution opposes the application and the contravention is of any such provision of these rules or orders made thereunder as the Central Government may by notified order specify in this behalf, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such contravention." It will be noticed that clause (b) of this rule is applicable only to cases where the contravention is of any such provision of the rules, or orders made thereunder, which the Central Government has specified by a notified order, in that behalf. In case of such contraventions the grant of ball is not governed by section 497/498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but by the provision of rule 210 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, and the Court can grant bail only if it is satisfied that grounds exist for believing that the accused/petitioners are not guilty of any such contravention. The learned O. S. D. brought to my notice a Notification (No. S. R. O. 669(1)/1972 dated 1.9‑1972, printed at page 805 of P L D 1972 Central Statutes) which roads as follows t‑ Order under Rule 210 (b), D. P. R.‑

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of rule 210 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, the Federal Government is pleased to specify the following provisions of the said Rules for the contravention whereof the provision of the aforesaid clause shall apply:- The provisions contained in clause 6 of rule 42 and rule 49. "

5. Rule 42(6) defines 'Prejudicial Acts'. I am of the view that the action of the petitioners is a 'prejudicial act' within the meaning of rule 42(6)(t) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules inasmuch as it is an act which is intended, or is likely to pre-judice, inter alia, the security, the safety and interest of Pakistan. Clause (b) of rule 210 is, therefore, attracted to the facts of the case. As such ball cannot be granted unless the petitioners can satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that they are not guilty of the offence alleged against them. But, as already discussed above, 'there is ample material on the record to show that they are guilty of an offence under rule 31(1) read with rules 198 and 42(6) (t) of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, 1971. Consequently their application for bail is rejected. S. A. H. Application rejected.