' UMAR ATA BANDIAL, C J.---The applicant, a police Inspector, is the complainant in F.I.R. No, 633 dated 4-6-2013 lodged at Police Station Ghulam Muhammadabad, District Faisalabad for offence under section 5 Explosives Act, section 7 ATA and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance against named accused who escaped from the scene. Subsequently, during investigation, the applicant was arrested for commission of offence under section 201, P.P.C. Involving the suppression of evidence against an accused person. The foregoing position was reported to the respondent No,2 learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, No,1, Faisalabad (learned trial court".) vide interim challan dated 13-6- 2013. Vide order dated 15-6-2013 by rejecting the applicant's post arrest bail petition, the learned trial court observed that the material on police record actually disclosed the offence under section 214 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 ("Act") which concerns the harbouring of an accused person. As a sequel to the said order dated 15-6-2013, the interim challan dated 18-7-2013 has alleged commission of the offence under section 21-J of the Act by the applicant/accused.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has made two submissions to support his present plea for transfer of the case from the learned trial court to some other learned Anti-Terrorism Court. Firstly, he contends that any opinion expressed at the bail stage by a learned trial court with respect to the police case reported in an interim challan reflects a predilection of the learned Judge in respect of the case before him. Secondly, he submits that the applicant's bail refusal order dated 15-6-2013, in respect of offence under section 214 of the Act, wrongly treated that offence as non- bailable whereas it is bailable. The said error was subsequently corrected by this Court while granting bail to the applicant/accused on 3-7-2013. Adds that the learned trial court, respondent No,2 misread the law on that account due to his personal disposition towards the applicant/accused. This is because the applicant was earlier before the same learned Judge as an accused in case F.I.R. No, 271 of 2000 dated 30-5-2000 alleging offences under sections 506, 224 and 225, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Kotwali, District Jhang pertaining to the applicant's escape 13 years ago from the court of the learned respondent No,2 when he was Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang. Reliance is placed on Amir Altas Khan and another v. The State and 2 others (2002 SCM R 709) wherein transfer has been justified in cases where it is shown that possibility of free and fair trial is not apparent on the face of the record.
3. The said judgment is based on different facts as well as a different premise un-related to the present allegation made in this application. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment is re-produced below to highlight the difference: "Because of a previous murderous enmity as stated above, hostility is existing between the parties and in the circumstances petitioners' apprehension that they would be killed on the way while going to the Court at Karak from Peshawar merits paramount consideration. Under the existing facts and circumstances when blood fued is going on between the parties the petitioners can justifiably seek transfer of their case to any other neighbouring District. This Court in the case of Haji Khawar Saleem v. State (supra) has dealt with the matter in the similar circumstances and has transferred the case from the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sargodha to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad while holding that though he had no personal complaint against the learned Presiding Officer of the Court but due to the fact that he was directed to submit bail bond in the sum of Rs, one lac with two sureties each in the like amount failing which to remain in civil prison till the said bond had been furnished, he had entertained an apprehension that he may not get fair treatment, for, in a case in which the maximum punishment was imposition of fine of Rs,200 he had been ordered to furnish bond in huge amount which amounted to deprive him of the right to defend the case. "
' Reliance is also placed on Alam Khan and 4 others v. The State (2005 YLR 1848) wherein the allegation of the learned trial court advising the applicant/accused to compromise for avoiding conviction was considered as a ground of transfer. That allegation is vastly different from the plea taken by the applicant in the present case.
4. Learned APG has relied on two judgments bearing Muhammad Waqas v. The State (2002 SCM R 1370) and Gen. (R) Pervez Musharraf v. The State and another (PLD 2013 Islamabad 66) to show that judicial observations made by a learned trial court at the bail stage with respect A to the commission of offence alleged in an interim challan are a lawful act not suffering from any illegality or excess of jurisdiction. Consequently, the applicant's allegation levelled on the basis of the B observations made at the bail stage by the learned trial court in the present case has no nexus with bias.
5. A transfer application may succeed on the ground that the learned respondent No,2 is partial in the matter against the applicant. The case-law referred by the learned APG indicates that alertness demonstrated by the learned trial court at the pre-trial stage in order to focus the controversy on the relevant facts and relevant allegation is not an indication of predisposition or bias. The said allegation in the present case does not sustain the plea that a free and impartial trial is not apparent on the record.
6. Secondly, learned counsel for the applicant has rightly pointed out that the trial court in its order dated 15-6-2013 misread section 21-J of the Act to be a non-bailable offence. However, that allegation reveals an error was made by learned trial court rather than discloses its specific bent of mind. It is for correcting such errors that appeals, revisions and other remedies are made available to aggrieved persons for relief. The applicant availed the appropriate remedy and obtained the requisite relief. Bias of the learned trial court cannot be inferred on that account. The effort to weave the afore noted two allegations with the applicant's misconduct committed 13 years ago in the court of respondent No,2 may be a fact in the memory of the applicant but there is nothing on record to suggest that any .Such incident or recollection has played any role in the order dated 15- 6-2013 passed by learned respondent No,2.
7. The order dated 5-7-2013 passed in relation to the bail application of another co-accused Munir also refers the attributed role of the applicant. It is alleged that such reference in the bail order of a co-accused reveals a bias towards the applicant by suggesting a role which is not even alleged by the prosecution in its case.
8. The order dated 5-7-2013 has been perused. It records a reason for grant of bail to Munir co- accused. On the ground that another co-accused Asif, the present applicant was, notwithstanding the allegation of a more serious role under Section 21-J of the Act, granted bail by this Court. For that reason Munir co-accused was also granted bail by the learned trial court. The reference made to the role of the applicant in the bail granting order pertaining to Munir co-accused is evidently meant for comparative purposes to grant bail and not as a reflection of any pre-disposition towards applicant/ accused.
9. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.