HALEEM YOUSAF alias CH. PERVAIZ vs THE STATE
This matter arises from an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was implicated in case F.I.R. No.259 registered under section 15 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question concerns whether pre-arrest bail should be confirmed for an accused who was declared a proclaimed offender after going abroad, allegedly relying on counsel's assurance. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's absence was not deliberate or wilful, noting that he holds dual nationality and had left abroad following the initial grant of bail before the challan was submitted. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surrender of passport, establishing the principle that absence resulting from reliance on counsel's assurance in the absence of a submitted challan does not disentitle an accused to confirmation of bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when an accused has been declared a proclaimed offender?
- Does traveling abroad after obtaining interim pre-arrest bail before the submission of challan constitute a wilful absence?
- Can an accused's absence be excused when it occurred due to the assurance of counsel regarding the submission of challan?
- Section 15, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. 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 F.I.R. No.259 dated 1-7-2004 registered under section 15 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station A-Division Okara.
2. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent, in this case. He holds double nationality. He had left for Netherlands, after grant of bail, as challan was not submitted in Court, till then. On submission of challan, notices were issued. He was proceeded under sections 87/88, Cr.P.C. And declared proclaimed offender.
3. 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. 4.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail and stated that he is a proclaimed offender.
5. 6.This petition was to be heard by the learned trial Court, which had granted post-arrest bail 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. 7.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 Netherlands 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.