Pakistan Case Law
1989 P Cr. L J 2152

Ch. ALLAH DITTA vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1989 P Cr. L J 2152
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1585/B of 1981
Date1981-06-14
Judge(s)Khalil-Ur-Rehman Khan
ResultBail allowed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from an application filed by Ch. Allah Ditta seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest pursuant to non-bailable warrants of arrest issued by the Assistant Commissioner Zhob, Baluchistan. The petitioner asserted that he is a resident of Sargodha, has never visited Zhob, and that the warrants were issued to cause undue harassment through the manipulation of a third party. The core legal question concerned the propriety of granting interim pre-arrest relief to enable the petitioner to approach a competent court of jurisdiction. The Lahore High Court held that in the circumstances of the case, it was proper to grant interim anticipatory bail for a limited period to allow the petitioner to seek remedies in accordance with law. The key principle laid down is that interim pre-arrest bail may be granted to protect a petitioner from immediate arrest and harassment, enabling them to approach the appropriate forum for legal redress.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Can the Lahore High Court grant interim anticipatory bail against non-bailable warrants issued by an authority in another province?
  • Whether interim pre-arrest bail can be granted to enable a petitioner to approach a competent court for legal remedy?
anticipatory bailinterim bailnon-bailable warrantsharassmentcriminal procedure

ORDER

' Ch. Allah Ditta applicant seeks anticipatory bail as he apprehends arrest in pursuant to non- bailable warrant of arrest issued by Assistant Commissioner Zhob, Baluchistan. It is asserted on his behalf that he is neither resident of Zhob nor he has ever visited Zhob nor he has ever entered into a transaction with any person resident of Zhob. According to learned counsel he paid Rs,10,000 to one Ghulam Rasul who had some dispute with one Alam Din and that the remaining sum of Rs,10,000 in dispute was agreed to be directly paid by Alam Din after settlement of accounts. He asserts that Alam Din and Ghulam Rasul both are residents of Sargodha, and that it appears that some case has been got registered due to manipulation of aforesaid Ghulam Rasul. The non- bailable warrants of arrest have been issued in order to cause undue harassment to the petitioner.

2. There is nothing on the record to frame any opinion as to the assertions made. Learned counsel relies on Muhammad Amin v. The State 1973 P Cr. L J 661. As the non-bailable warrants of arrest have been issued I deem it proper in the circumstances of this case to allow interim anticipatory bail for 15 days to the applicant on his furnishing security in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to enable him to approach competent Court to get remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner shall not be arrested till 30-6-1981. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.

Cited by 9 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.