The applicants were allowed bail before arrest by the learned ASJ, but their bail was recalled/cancelled by the learned High Court.

 2022 SCMR 2055

The applicants were allowed bail before arrest by the learned ASJ, but their bail was recalled/cancelled by the learned High Court.

Their pre-arrest bail petition before this Court has not been entertained by the office by placing reliance on Order XXIII Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and a judgment of this Court reported as Muhammad Adnan Vs. The State (2015 SCMR 1570).

Office objection is misconceived The bar contained in first proviso to Rule 8 Order XXIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, does not apply to the case in hand because of the reason that no order of imprisonment or fine as contained in Rule 8 ibid is challenged before this Court and, as such, the said bar is not applicable to the present case.

Case of the applicants is entirely on different footing and the same is not sensitized by first proviso to Rule 8, which requires surrender to an order of imprisonment before availing the opportunity of filing petition before the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the matter pertains to recalling of the order of pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants by the learned Trial Court. In PLD 1991 SC 379) it has been held that bar contained in Rule 8 Order XXIII does not apply in such like case.

Even otherwise, I have noted that in the instant case, second proviso to Rule 8 would be applicable, which states that the petitions involving bail before arrest may be entertained and posted for hearing if the petitioner undertakes to appear and surrender in Court. Learned counsel for the applicants stated at the bar that the applicants are ready and willing to appear and surrender before this Court. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Zahid Afzal Vs. The State (PLD 1991 SC 382) wherein in similar situation, when the petitioners surrendered themselves before this Court, the petition for bail before arrest was entertained by this Court.