"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2011J22_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eSURRENDER BEFORE MAGISTRATE\u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eAdil Hafeez\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eAdil Hafeez\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2012-05-03T16:03:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2012-05-03T16:03:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e3229\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e18409\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eOratier\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e153\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e43\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e21595\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eSURRENDER BEFORE MAGISTRATE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e---VALIDITY OF\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n-.1pt\u0027\u003eKhadim Hussian Malik, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.) Former\r\nDirector/Faculty Member Punjab Judicial Academy, Lahore\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eA practice is going on in the Courts of Judicial\r\nMagistrates whereunder an accused person, involved in any criminal case,\r\nparticularly in bailable offences and on occasions even in non-bailable\r\noffences, surrenders himself before a Magistrate and procures bail from his\r\nCourt.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eInstances are also not wanting where the Court of\r\nSession, while dealing with an application for bail before arrest, after\r\nadmitting the accused to interim bail, directs him to appear before the area\r\nMagistrate for further necessary action in accordance with law. The Magistrate\r\nin turn passes order admitting him to bail, subject to furnishing bail bond for\r\nappropriate amount, with or without sureties.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIt is being considered as if the use of word.\r\n\u0026quot;appears\u0026quot; in section 496, Cr.P.C. and subsection (1) of section 497,\r\nCr.P.C. permits an accused person to appear before a Magistrate, even before\r\nhis physical arrest and after surrending himself to the \u0026quot;Judicial\r\ncustody\u0026quot; of the Court, seek bail under section 496 or 497, Cr.P.C., as the\r\ncase may be.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe question arises whether the practice so commonly\r\nbeing observed in the Courts \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003eis \u003c/span\u003ein\r\nconsonance with the settled law of bail? In this connection the following\r\npoints need consideration:--\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:37.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-19.5pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:37.5pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(a)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eWhether the\r\n\u0026quot;voluntary appearance\u0026quot; of an accused before a Magistrate by way of\r\nsurrender and not being in response to process issued to him, can be considered\r\nto be valid and acceptable under the settled law?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:37.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-19.5pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:37.5pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(b)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eDoes it not\r\namount to grant of bail before arrest by Magistrate, an area exclusively\r\nreserved for the exercise of jurisdiction by High Court or Court of Session and\r\nfor no other Criminal Court constituted under Cr.P.C.?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:37.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-19.5pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:37.5pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(c)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eDoes it not\r\namount to circumventing the statutory right of the police to investigate\r\ncognizable offences?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:37.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-19.5pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:37.5pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(d)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eWhether\r\n\u0026quot;voluntary appearance\u0026quot; before a Magistrate amounts to \u0026quot;Judicial\r\ncustody\u0026quot;?\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe matter is connected with the law of anticipatory\r\nbail as has gradually developed in our Country during the period from 1949 to\r\n1966. At one time the grant \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003eof \u003c/span\u003eanticipatory\r\n\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003ebail was \u003c/span\u003ecompletely unknown \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003ein the Sub-Continent, in as much as no case was\r\nthen found even in the English Law where anticipatory bail might have been\r\nallowed, When such a relief was claimed for the first time in Lahore High Court\r\nin 1948 the Crown Counsel maintained that the Court did not enjoy the power to\r\ngrant \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.3pt\u0027\u003ebail \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003ebefore arrest,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003e(1) POSITION IN\r\nINDIA\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:-.1pt\u0027\u003eAs observed in\r\nBalehand Jain v. State AIR 1977 SC 366, there \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003ewas at one time conflict of decisions amongst different High Courts \u003c/span\u003ein\r\n\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eIndia about the power of a Court to grant\r\nanticipatory bail. The majority view was that there was no such power in the\r\nCourt under the old Criminal Procedure Code (India revised Cr.PC. 1898 in the\r\nyear 1974). In the revised Cr.P.C., on the recommendations of the Law\r\nCommission, a new section 438 has been introduced conferring power of\r\nanticipatory bail on High Court and Court of Session.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e(2) \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ePOSITION IN\r\nPAKISTAN\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eIn Pakistan also\r\nthere was an impression at one time that Cr.P.C. is completely silent about the\r\npower of the Courts to grant anticipatory bail. It is, however, now well\r\nsettled that Section 498, Cr.P.C. deals with such powers of High Court and\r\nCourt of Session. Unlike India the law of anticipatory bail in Pakistan is not\r\nstatutory law, rather Judge made law based on interpretation of the provisions\r\nof section 498, Cr.P.C. It was observed in Khalid Rashed v. State PLD 1972\r\nLahore 722, in the following terms:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;\u003c/span\u003eWhen sections 497 and 498, Cr.P\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003e.C.\u003c/span\u003e were enacted probably the framers of the Code did not clearly\r\nvisualize anticipatory bail. It is, however, through precedent law which has\r\nnow the force of statutory law that a petition for anticipatory bail under\r\nsection 498 read with section 497 can competently be made.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eAs observed supra,\r\nthe issue in hand being connected with the law of anticipatory bail, it is all\r\nthe more essential to consider its historical perspective, in order to\r\ncomprehend the parameters fixed by the Superior Courts for the grant of bail so\r\nas to determine how for the concept of so-called \u0026quot;surrender to Judicial\r\nCustody\u0026quot; fits in.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027text-align:center;mso-pagination:none;\r\nmso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003eHISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003eI. \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eView of Lahore High Court\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003eThe first ever case decided after independence, regarding the power of\r\nthe High Court to grant anticipatory bail is Hidayat UIlah Khan v. Crown \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003ePLD 1949 LHR 21.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003eTwo \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003epetitions \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003ewere\r\n\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003efiled \u003c/span\u003ein \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eLahore High Court alleging initiation of criminal\r\nproceedings against the petitioners and their consequential arrest, causing\r\nthem great disgrace and dishonour, The Crown Counsel challenged the competence\r\nof High Court to grant bail in anticipation of arrest. The matter being\r\n\u0026quot;important\u0026quot; involving \u0026quot;difficult\u0026quot; question of law a Full\r\nBench headed by Mr. Justice Muhammad Munir Actg. Chief Justice was constituted.\r\nThe Bench formulated the following question for consideration:--\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Whether the High Court can grant any relief, and if so what to a\r\nperson, seeking an order to bail in anticipation of his arrest for an\r\noffence\u0026quot;?\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eSpeaking for the\r\nCourt Mr. Justice Cornelius answered the question as under:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003e\u0026quot; ..in a proper case, the High Court has power under section 498,\r\nCriminal Procedure Code, to make an order that a person who is suspected of an\r\noffence for which he may be arrested by a police officer or a Court, shall be\r\nadmitted to bail.\u0026quot; The exercise of this power could, however, be confined\r\nto cases in which not only is good prima facie ground made out for the grant of\r\nbail in respect of the offence alleged, but also, it should be shown that if\r\nthe petitioner were to be arrested and refused bail, such an order would, in\r\nall probability, be made not from motives of furthering the ends of justice in\r\nrelation to the case, but from some ulterior motive, and with the object of\r\ninjuring the petitioner, or that the petitioner would in such an eventuality\r\nsuffer irreparable harm.\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eThe other Hon\u0027ble\r\nMembers of the Full Bench agreed with it.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003eII. \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eHidayat Ullah case over-ruled\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eThe decision given\r\nin Hidayat Ullah\u0027s case was subsequently over-ruled by the Federal Court in the\r\ncase of Crown v. Khushi Muhammad PLD 1953 Federal Court 170.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eIn this case the\r\nsubject of consideration by the Federal Court was the order passed by Mr.\r\nJustice Kiyani of the Lahore High Court, granting bail before arrest to the\r\naccused. The order was based \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003eon \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ethe \u003c/span\u003eauthority of Hidayatullah Khan\u0027s case in\r\npreference to Full Bench case of \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eEast Punjab,\r\nAmirchand v. Crown \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003eAIR 1950, \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eEast Punjab \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.7pt\u0027\u003e53 \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eand \u003c/span\u003eMuhammad Abbas v.\r\nCrown \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.6pt\u0027\u003ePLD 1950 \u003c/span\u003eSindh 80, containing a\r\ncontrary \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eview.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eIn over-ruling\r\nHidayat \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.7pt\u0027\u003eUllah\u0027s \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ecase the following reasons were advanced by the\r\nFederal Court:-\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003e(i)\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003eAs held by Privy Council in Re: Lala\r\nJai \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.4pt\u0027\u003eRam \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.7pt\u0027\u003eDas v. \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003eKing Emperor, AIR 1945 PC\r\n94, Section 498, Cr.P.C. does not \u003c/span\u003eenlarge the categories of persons to\r\nwhom bail can be granted under Sections 496 and 497, leading to an inference\r\nthat such persons must be under custody.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(ii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eSection\r\n498, Cr.P.C. being ancillary and subsidiary to Sections 496 and 497 cannot deal\r\nwith persons other than those covered by those Sections.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe basic\r\nconception of word \u0027bail\u0027 as defined in various dictionaries i.e. \u0026quot;release\r\nof a person from the custody of Police and delivery into the hands of\r\nsureties\u0026quot; has not been adverted to in Hidayat Ullah\u0027s case.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003eCONCLUSION:\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIt was concluded that:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot; ....a person cannot\r\nbe admitted to bail against whom a report has been lodged at the police station\r\nbut who has not been placed in custody; or under any other form of restraint or\r\nagainst whom no warrants of arrest has been issued.\u0026quot; \u0026quot;In the case of\r\na person who \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.85pt\u0027\u003eis\u003c/span\u003e not under arrest but\r\nfor whose arrest warrants have been issued, bail can be granted under section\r\n498 if he appears in Court and surrenders himself.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIII. \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eExtension of\r\nRule laid down in Khushi Muhammad\u0027s case.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eAfter expiry of about 13 years of the above decision\r\nof the Federal Court, controversy about the \u0026quot;powers of Criminal Courts to\r\ngrant bail before arrest\u0026quot; again cropped up in the apex Court in the case\r\nof Sadiq Ali v. State, PLD 1966 S.C. 589.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eAs a question of general importance was involved the\r\nSpecial Leave to Appeal \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ewas \u003c/span\u003eheard by\r\nFull Court.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eAfter detailed discussion\r\nthe Court concluded that:-\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;.... The rule laid\r\ndown in Khusi Muhammad\u0027s case could be safely extended to direction for the\r\ngrant of ball to person, whose arrest, on a criminal charge by the police,\r\nwithout warrant, is proved to be imminent and certain, and where the circumstances\r\nwould justify the grant of bail\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eInterpretation of\r\nword \u0026quot;appears\u0026quot;\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe word \u0027appears\u0027 used in sections 496 and 497 was\r\nalso interpreted. According to Court it meant not only appearance in response\r\nto process issued against a person but also his voluntary appearance. It was\r\nobserved:--\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;....the word\r\n\u0026quot;appears\u0026quot; occurring in sections 496 and 497 of the Code need not be\r\nnecessarily confined to cases where a person has been summoned to appear in\r\nCourt. A person against whom accusation has been laid, either in Court or\r\nbefore the police might anticipate the issue of a process against him and\r\nappear voluntarily in Court.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIV. \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eLaw of\r\nAnticipatory bail -- Authoritative pronouncement\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIn the case of Muhammad Ayub v. Muhammad Yaqoob and\r\nothers PLD 1966 SC 1003 once again the \u0026quot;exact scope of powers conferred on\r\nthe High Court and Court of Session, by section 498, Cr.P.C.\u0026quot; came up for\r\nconsideration.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eInterpretation of\r\nword \u0026quot;appears\u0026quot; - the view expressed \u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ein\r\n\u003c/span\u003eSadiq Ali\u0027s case modified\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe Supreme Court agreed with the contention advanced\r\non behalf of the respondent that the word \u0027appears\u0027 should apply only to a\r\nperson appearing in response to process issued by Court and should not be held\r\nto include voluntary appearance by a person seeking bail; that by adopting its\r\ngeneral dictionary sense \u0026quot;section 498 itself would seem to become\r\nredundant;\u0026quot; that if by voluntary appearance grant of bait becomes possible\r\nby order of Court, without the Court being directly seized of the case, there\r\nwould be no need to have recourse to section 498 at all. As the argument found\r\nfavour with the Court the view expressed in Sadiq Ali\u0027s case was modified and\r\nit was concluded:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;... the word\r\n\u0026quot;appearance\u0026quot; in sections 496 and 497 need not be construed to include\r\nvoluntary appearance, even in circumstance of grave. apprehension of\r\narrest.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eSalient features of\r\nthe Judgment of Supreme Court\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe Supreme Court by its majority judgments\r\ndetermined the exact scope of section 498. The salient features of the judgment\r\nare as under: -\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(i) \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eWhen bail can be\r\ngranted under section 496 and 497, Cr.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Under sections 496\r\nand 497, Criminal Procedure Code, the Court can bail out a person only if:\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.0in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(i)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003ehe has\r\nbeen placed under actual custody or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.0in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(ii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003eappears\r\nin answer to a process issued or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:1.0in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eis\r\nbrought before the Court, presumably\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;\r\nmso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e(a)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eby the police or\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;\r\nmso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e(b)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eby some other arresting\r\nauthority.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIn other words, these\r\nsections apply where there has been an actual arrest attracting the Court\u0027s jurisdiction\r\nor the court is seized of the proceedings directly, in which. bail is\r\nrequested\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(ii) \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eApplication of\r\nSection 498, Cr.P.C.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;Section 498,\r\nhowever, would be called in aid, before the Court of Session and the High\r\nCourt, even where\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(i)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e         \u003c/span\u003ethe court\r\nis not seized directly of the proceedings in question and\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.75in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-.5in;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:.75in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(ii)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e        \u003c/span\u003ewhere no\r\nactual arrest has been made so far but anticipatory bail is asked for,\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003ee.g, where the case is\r\nstill at a stage of investigation by the police or is pending in a subordinate\r\ncourt,\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iii) the powers to grant\r\nsuch anticipatory bail would thus be confined to the High Court and the Court\r\nof Session and \u0027other courts would be excluded from its scope.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.25in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(iii) \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eSection 498 a\r\nSupplementary Provision\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.25in;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;  .In\r\nother respects however, Section 498 occupies the position of a supplementary\r\nprovision in so far as it confers not only concurrent but revisional powers on\r\nthe High Court and the Court of Session in respect of grant or refusal of bail\r\nby subordinate Courts and the Police and enables these Courts to exercise the\r\npower of anticipatory bail, in suitable cases.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(4) It \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.1pt\u0027\u003ewould \u003c/span\u003ebe seen that the Supreme Court of\r\nPakistan in its above judgment has clearly specified the circumstances and the\r\nparameters under and within which post arrest bail and bail before arrest can\r\nbe granted. It is thus requirement of law that while dealing with bail matters\r\none must fully comply with the same, ensuring that there is no deviation\r\ntherefrom. These have to be necessarily followed in their letter and spirit.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(5) The questions raised\r\nabove are now answered seriatim in the light of the judgment given in Muhammad\r\nAyub\u0027s case and other judgments of Superior Courts:--\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:92.25pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-20.25pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:92.25pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(a)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eIn the case of\r\nsurrender before the Magistrate the accused puts up his \u0026quot;voluntary\r\nappearance\u0026quot; and does not appear in response to any process issued to him.\r\nMoreover, neither at that time the accused is under actual arrest so as to\r\nattract the jurisdiction of the Magistrate nor the latter is directly seized of\r\nthe proceedings in which the bail is requested. All these are conditions\r\nprecedent for the grant of bail under the provisions of sections 496 and 497,\r\nleading to a safe inference that the grant of bail by the Magistrate in the\r\ncase of surrender is without jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:1.0in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:92.25pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-20.25pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:92.25pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(b)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003e\u0026quot;Voluntary\r\nappearance\u0026quot; is permissible only under section 498, Cr.P.C. the proper\r\nforum for which is High Court or Court of Session and not the Magistrate; still\r\nif he grants bail in such a case it would amount to grant of bail before\r\narrest.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:92.25pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-20.25pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:92.25pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(c)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e   \u003c/span\u003eThe grant of\r\nbail in such a case would also result in defeating the statutory right of\r\ninvestigation of police. The Supreme Court in State v. Fateh Muhammad 1972 SCMR\r\n182 observed that the statutory right of police to investigate a cognizable\r\noffence cannot be circumvented by the accused by avoiding police and\r\nsurrendering before a Magistrate.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:92.25pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n-20.25pt;mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:92.25pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(d)\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eThe connotation\r\nof \u0026quot;judicial custody\u0026quot; has been elaborated in State v. Muhammad Ayoob\r\nPLD 2008 Karachi 492. The Court observed as under: --\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;There is no scope\r\nfor a person to contend that his voluntarily appearance before the Court should\r\nbe construed as \u0026quot;judicial custody\u0026quot;. The concept of\r\n\u0026quot;custody\u0026quot; as enunciated in the Crown v. Khushi Muhammad PLD 1953 FC\r\n170 connotes that the person is under some actual restraint. In other words,\r\nthere is no concept of constructive custody before the court or a Judge by way\r\nof a voluntary surrender. To further make out this point, reference is invited\r\nto Jumma Khan v. The State PLD 1960 Pesh. 25 wherein it was held that the\r\nappearance before the Court mentioned in \u0027section 497 of the Cr.P.C. is\r\nappearance in compliance with a process issued by a Court. It was further\r\nobserved that where no process for the appearance of an accused person is\r\nissued by any Court and he voluntarily makes appearance, he is neither under\r\nany form of restraint nor has he any process for his restraint. Although the\r\njudgments in The Crown v. Khushi Muhammad and Jumma Khan v. The State were\r\ndelivered at the time when the concept of bail before arrest was till its embryonic\r\nstate in Pakistan, the said two judgments are still good authority for the\r\nproposition and to the extent that a voluntary surrender per se before the\r\nCourt of law cannot be construed as \u0026quot;custody\u0026quot;.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(6) \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eBAIL GRANTING\r\nPOWERS OF A MAGISTRATE\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIt has been seen that a Magistrate is not competent\r\nto grant bail before arrest. He can grant bail either to a person in actual\r\ncustody or to the one who appears before him in response to process issued\r\nagainst him.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThere are, however, two rulings of Lahore High Court\r\npronounced by Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Zullah whereby the Magistrate has been\r\nheld to be empowered to grant bail before arrest, when the accused had\r\nsurrendered himself before the Court.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe first case is Muhammad Sharif v. State PLJ 1978\r\nCriminal Case Lahore 553=1979 PCr.LJ Note 7 at page 5. In this case the\r\npetitioner sought bail before arrest directly from the Lahore High Court which\r\nwas disallowed with the observations that even the Magistrate had ample\r\njurisdiction to admit a person to bail before arrest. It was observed as\r\nfollows:-\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;mso-pagination:\r\nnone;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u0026quot;2. Learned counsel\r\nstates that the petitioner cannot move for bail before arrest before a\r\nMagistrate. In so for as the technical phraseology \u0026quot;bail before\r\narrest\u0026quot; used in some rulings is concerned, this might, on face, appear to\r\nbe correct; but the provisions contained in subsection (1) of section 497,\r\nCr.P.C. permit an accused person to appear before a Court of Magistrate even\r\nprior to his physical arrest and thus after presenting himself before the Court\r\nseek bail under subsection (1) of section 497. For all practical purposes, if\r\nthe Magistrate grants bail it would amount to bail before physical\r\narrest.\u0026quot;\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe second case is Muhammad Saeed v. State 1980\r\nPCr.LJ 17. In this case the Magistrate, acting on Muhammad Sharif\u0027s case\r\nadmitted the accused persons to bail even though they had not been formally\r\narrested. The counsel for the complainant relying on Muhammad Ayub\u0027s case\r\ncontended that the law laid down in the, case of Muhammad Sharif is not\r\ncorrect; because anticipatory bail cannot be allowed by a Magistrate under\r\nsection 497, Cr.P.C.---such power is available only with the Sessions Court and\r\nthe High Court under section 498, Cr.P.C.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIt was, however, again held that the observations\r\nmade in Muhammad Sharif\u0027s case is not contrary to law. Nevertheless, relying on\r\nPLD 1949 Lahore 21, PLD 1953 FC 170, PLD 1966 SC 589 and PLD 1966 SC 1003 the\r\n\u0026quot;Hon\u0027ble Judge was pleased to revisit the earlier judgment of Muhammad\r\nSharif authored by him holding that the Magistrate could only grant bail in the\r\nthree circumstances detailed in PLD 1966 SC 1003.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eIt appears that the practice by Magistrates of\r\naccepting surrender of accused even before his physical arrest started from\r\nthese two rulings which has now become a matter of routine.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(7) \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eTHE TWO JUDGEMENTS DECLARED PER \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.5pt\u0027\u003eINCURIAM\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe aforementioned two judgments of Lahore High\r\nCourt, regarding powers of the Magistrate to grant bail before arrest have been\r\ndeclared per incuriam by Karachi High Court in State v. Muhammad Ayoob PLD 2008\r\nKarachi 492.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe accused in this case surrendered himself before\r\nthe Judicial Magistrate Karachi (West) who relying upon Muhammad Sharif\u0027s case\r\ngranted him bail before arrest. The complainant sought cancellation of the bail\r\nfrom the Sessions Court but his petition was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby the\r\ncomplainant filed a Criminal Revision in the High Court which was ultimately\r\nnot pursued by him. The High Court, however, keeping in view the question\r\ninvolved as to the powers of the Magistrate to grant bail before arrest,\r\ninstead of dismissing the same for non-prosecution converted it into suo motu\r\nCriminal Revision.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe High Court analyzed in detail the said two\r\njudgments in the light of the four judgments discussed under the caption\r\n\u0026quot;Historical Perspective of Anticipatory Bail\u0026quot; and came to the\r\nconclusion that the observations contained in Muhammad Sharif\u0027s case, to the\r\neffect that the Magistrate is competent to grant bail before arrest are per\r\nincuriam, being not the correct statement of law.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.5in;\r\nmso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e*\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e          \u003c/span\u003eDecision given in ignorance or\r\nforgetfulness of some inconsistent statutory provision or of some authority\r\nbinding on the Court concerned.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eSimilarly the observation in Muhammad Saeed\u0027s case to\r\nthe effect that the Muhammad Sharif\u0027s case is not contrary to law is also per\r\nincuriam.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(8) \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eEXAMPLE FROM.AJ\u0026amp;K JURISDICTION\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eAnother example of similar grant of bail by the\r\nMagistrate, on surrender of accused, is found in Asghar Ali Malik v. Muhammad\r\nSharif 1995 PCr.LJ Supreme Court (Azad J \u0026amp; K). In this case the Magistrate\r\ngranted bail before arrest to certain accused. Before the Supreme Court the\r\ncounsel for the accused relying on the word \u0027appears\u0027 used in Section 497 Cr.PC\r\nargued that the trial court was competent to grant bail to those persons who\r\nappear before it and the fact that such persons are not already under arrest\r\nmakes no material difference because when they appear before the Court they\r\nsurrender themselves.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe Supreme Court repelled this contention and held\r\nthat the Magistrate cannot grant pre-arrest bail. It was clarified that\r\n\u0027appearance\u0027 in the aforesaid section is not of a person who is wanted by the\r\npolice and is avoiding arrest. If such a person appears before the Court of\r\nMagistrate he cannot be granted bail because that would fall under the category\r\nof pre-arrest bail.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e(9) \u003cb\u003e\u003cu\u003eCONCLUSION\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/b\u003e:--\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eUnder sections 496 and 497 a Magistrate can grant\r\nbail only to three categories of persons. In the first category bail could only\r\nbe granted if the person was in actual custody; the second category deals with\r\na situation when a person appears in answer to a process issued by the Court\r\nand in the third category either the police or some other law enforcing agency\r\nbrings a person before the Magistrate. No other category of person is within\r\nthe scope of the provisions of these two sections. As observed in PLD 2008\r\nKarachi 492 a person who makes voluntary appearance is neither under any\r\ncustody nor under any restraint and his voluntary appearance per se before the\r\nCourt of law cannot be construed as \u0026quot;custody\u0026quot;. Such a person is not\r\nentitled to claim bail under these sections. If the Magistrate still grants him\r\nbail it amounts to bail before arrest.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027text-align:justify;mso-pagination:none;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003eThe practice of accepting surrender by a Magistrate\r\nthus being not in consonance with the settled principles of law enunciated by\r\nthe Hon\u0027ble apex Court, needs to be discontinued forthwith.\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\r\n  \r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n \r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"