MUHAMMAD AKBAR VIRK vs The STATE
The petitioner, a Deputy General Manager in PASSCO accused under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, sought pre-arrest bail. His interim bail was cancelled by the trial court after it deemed his medical certificate non-genuine upon his failure to appear. His subsequent petition before the High Court was dismissed by the Chief Justice with an observation that the petitioner should approach the trial court again. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, requesting that the High Court itself hear the bail petition due to apprehensions of bias from the trial court. The Supreme Court held that it was not inclined to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal while granting temporary ad-interim bail to enable the petitioner to approach the High Court.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the administrative or judicial discretion of a High Court Chief Justice regarding the assignment or hearing of bail petitions?
- Does the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by a trial court due to a disputed medical certificate warrant interference by the Supreme Court when alternative remedies before the High Court exist?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- Muhammad Akbar Virk petitioner is Deputy General Manager in the Pakistan Agricultural Storage and Services Corporation (PASSCO). He is accused of offence under section 409, P.P.C. And 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He applied for bail before arrest to the relevant Judge Anti-Corruption who granted him ad interim bail before arrest. He was, however, not able to be present on the date fixed for confirmation of the interim bail and instead produced a medical certificate, through his counsel, in support of the plea that he was unable to attend the Court due to illness. The learned trial Court however, felt that the said medical certificate was not genuine and therefore cancelled his pre-arrest bail. The petitioner then applied for grant of pre-arrest bail to the High Court and the matter was fixed before Mr. Justice Khizar Hayat who observed, inter alia, that:- "In the circumstances it would be appropriate if the bail petition is heard and decided by this Court."
Thereafter the matter was fixed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice, Lahore High Court who was pleased to dismiss the bail application with the following observation:- "Therefore, the proper course open to petitioner is to approach the Special Judge (Central) again where all these points can be urged."
The petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal before this Court. His only request is that in view of the afore-mentioned observation by Mr. Justice Khizar Hayat the High Court may itself hear the bail petition. Apparently he has apprehensions that the learned trial Court would be annoyed with him for not having appeared on the date fixed for confirmation of the pre-arrest interim bail granted to him, specially because it had expressed the view that the medical certificate was not genuine.
2. We are afraid we are not inclined to interfere with the exercise of his judicial discretion by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court.
If so advised the petitioner may approach his Lordship again, and make the request that he has made before us.
3. In the meanwhile, to enable him to approach the High Court, he is granted adinterim bail before arrest upto 15th of February, 1987, in the sum of Rs.10,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore.
This disposes of this petition.