HALEEM YOUSAF alias CH. PERVAIZ vs STATE
This is an application for pre-arrest bail arising from FIR No. 259 dated 1.7.2004 registered under Section 15 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station A-Division, Okara. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who went abroad after being granted ad-interim pre-arrest bail and was subsequently declared a proclaimed offender under Section 87/88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's departure abroad relying on his counsel's assurance rendered his absence non-deliberate, especially as he had surrendered his passport and the trial court had already granted him post-arrest bail on merits. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and mandated his regular appearance before the trial court.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused has been declared a proclaimed offender during proceedings?
- Does absence from the country based on counsel's assurance constitute a deliberate default in court appearance?
- Can pre-arrest bail be entertained by the High Court when apprehension of risk to life is expressed regarding appearance before the trial court?
- Section 15, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is an application for pre-arrest bail. The petitioner was admitted to ad-interim pre-arrest bail on 8.3.2005 by this Court in case FIR No, 259 dated 1.7.2004 registered under Section 15 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hadood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station A-Division, Okara.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent in this case. He holds double nationality. He had left for Netherland, after grant of bail, as challan was not submitted in Court, till. then. On submission of challan, notices were issued. He was proceeded under Section 87/88 Cr.P.C. and declared proclaimed offender.
3. The petitioner's learned counsel argued that he proceeded abroad on the assurance of his counsel for posting an intimation on submission, of challan, hence absence was neither deliberate nor wilful.
4. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail and stated that he is a proclaimed offender.
5. This petition was to be heard by the learned trial Court, which had granted post arrest hail but on apprehension expressed by petitioner of risk to his life, on account of allegation against him of practicing Ahmadi faith. It has been entertained here.
6. The petitioner on direction of this Court surrendered his passport with the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. The petitioner was granted bail on merit by the learned trial Court. He is a national of Netherland also. His proceeding abroad on the assurance of his counsel cannot be doubted. His absence, therefore, cannot be termed as deliberate. His pre-arrest bail is, therefore, confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. He shall appear on each date of hearing before the learned trial Court till decision. He can ask for return of his passport, on decision of the case against him.