Mst. KALSOOM and 2 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners sought pre-arrest bail directly before the High Court in a case registered under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, arising from FIR No. 111 of 1999 at Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh. The core legal question was whether the High Court could entertain a pre-arrest bail petition directly without the petitioners first approaching the Court of original jurisdiction, namely the Sessions Judge, without any valid justification. The Lahore High Court held that there was no justification to entertain the petition directly without approaching the court of first instance and without offering any reasonable explanation for bypassing it. Consequently, the court declined to examine the merits of the case and dismissed the petition in limine. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner must approach the court of original jurisdiction for pre-arrest bail before invoking the constitutional or extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, failing which the petition is liable to dismissal.
- Can a petitioner approach the High Court directly for pre-arrest bail without first approaching the Sessions Judge?
- Is it necessary to provide a reasonable explanation or justification for bypassing the court of original jurisdiction when seeking pre-arrest bail?
- Will a pre-arrest bail petition be dismissed in limine if the petitioner fails to approach the court of first instance?
- Section 16, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
Petitioner seek pre-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No,111 of 1999 at Police Station Jatoi, District Muzaffargarh, under section 16 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Allah Bachaya submitted an application to the S.H.O. For registration of case against petitioners Nos.2, 3 and others for abduction of his daughter Mst. Kalsoom petitioner No,1 during the night of 1-3-1999. It is alleged in the F.I.R. That petitioners Nos.2 and 3 alongwith others came in the house of the complainant with sweets which was distributed among the members of his family. After eating the sweets some of the members of the family of the complainant became unconscious. At about 4-00 a.m. When he gained senses found his daughter Mst. Kalsoom petitioner No,1 and his grandson Muhammad Wan missing from the house. He suspected the accused named in the F.I.R., went to their house which was found locked and accused missing. P.Ws. Told complainant that they saw Mst. Kalsoom and Muhammad Irfan at Wagon Adda in the company of the accused. When the accused were contacted they have been promising to return Mst. Kalsoom and Muhammad Irfan but subsequently they declined whereafter the complainant got case registered on 5-3-1999.
3. Petitioners have not approached the learned Sessions Judge for the grant of pre-arrest bail, the Court of first instance. There is no justification to entertain this petition directly without approaching the Court of original jurisdiction. No reasonable explanation has been furnished for not approaching the learned Sessions Judge for pre-arrest bail.
4. I am not inclined to go into the merits of the case as no valid justification for not approaching the learned Sessions Judge has been shown. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine