1. On the conclusion of the hearing, I had, by a short order, dismissed the application made by Mst.
2. Gohar Sultana and two others, seeking punishment of Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi, Additional City Magistrate, Kotri. The reasons for such short order presently follow.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants, Mst. Gohar Sultana, Mst. Zohra Khatoon and Habib-ur-Rehman, made an application before this Court on 25th March, 1981 for grant of bail before arrest in a case under sections 297 and 506, P. P. C. Pending in the Court of Additional City Magistrate at Kotri. By an order, dated 26th March, 1981, interim anticipatory bail was granted, and security was furnished by each one of the three accused persons. These applicants accused obtained a protec--tion order, which was produced by them before the Court of the Additional City Magistrate, Kotri, which was presided by Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi, the person whose punishment for contempt is sought by the present application. On 28th November, 1981 viz, after nearly eight months, an application was made before this Court under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, wherein it was alleged as follows :- ---In spite of the bail granted by this Hon'ble Court, the A. C. M. Kotri, Mr. Abbasi, illegally detained the three persons and released them after furnishing fresh surety on 1st April, 1981. Fresh bonds were also got signed and executed by these persons, though the same were already furnished in the High Court. At the time of these illegalities, the attention of Mr. Abbasi was drawn towards the sanctity of the High Court Order, but he refused to act accord--ingly and thus committed contempt of Court.--- The applicants also made an application on 2nd May, 1982 for summoning witnesses Farman Ali, the Reader in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrade, Kotri, Qazi Abdul Shakoor, Reader in the Court of the Civil Judge, Kotri and Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi, the alleged contemnor. Summons were issued to the first two witnesses, and Mr. Abdul Qadir Halepota, appearing for Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi (who is the contemnor) had undertaken to produce him in Court. All the three witnesses have been examined by me.
4. The sole question is, whether Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi, the Addi--tional City Magistrate, Kotri, had, in spite of grant of bail by this Court, illegally detained the three persons and released them after obtaining fresh surety on 1st April, 1981. Each one of the three witnesses, namely, Farman Alt, Qazi Abdul Shakoor and contemnor Abdul Jabbar Abbasi, have stated that neither was any of the persons (released on bail by this Court) detained on 1st April, 1981 nor were they asked to furnish any surety, In that regard, both the parties have referred to the case diary, dated 1st April, 1981, which reads as follows :- ---Aced. Habib Rehman, Riyasat Alt, Mst. Gohar Sultana and Mst. Zohra Begum produced by the D.
5. A. P. S. I. Present. Accd. Gohar Sultana, Mst. Zohra Begum and Habib Rehman have been granted bail (anticipatory) before arrest in case under section 506 (2)-297 P. P. C. All the accd. Persons furnished fresh surety. It was granted. The accd. Went without signing the bail bond. How--ever, their signature be obtained on the next date. Hearing for 12th April, 1981.--- On a reading of the case diary, it is plain that none of the persons was detained on 1st April, 1981.
6. The diary states that the three persons had been granted interim bail, which would clearly mean that the trial Court had the knowledge about the grant of bail by this Court. In fact, such document is on the record. However, the diary further says that all the accused persons furnished fresh surety.
7. Neither has any affidavit of surety, nor any bond been found on the record to show that, on 1st April, 1981, any of the accused persons had been asked to furnish security. However, the record discloses that, on 12th April, 1981 a personal bond and security bond was executed by the three persons, who were released on bail by this Court and their surety. Such bond is available on the record of the trial Court at pages 91 and 92 (red pencil paging). This document, however, shows that, on 12th April, 1981 the three accused, enlarged on bail by this Court, and granted protection order, had furnished a fresh surety in the case. In this context, it may be stated that even this circumstance does not advance the case of the applicants against Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi, because, on 12th April, 1981 Mr. Abbasi was not working as Additional City Magistrate at Kotri, so that the case was placed before another Magistrate, who had attested the personal bond and surety bond. It would thus seem that, even if it is believed that a fresh surety was furnished by three applicants, it was not furnished before Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi, but before some other Magistrate.
8. In these circumstances, I find that there is nothing on the record to establish that Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi had flouted, or, violated the order of this Court, granting interim bail to the applicants. Mr. M.
9. M. K. A. Zai has, however, contended that the case diary, dated 1st April, 1981, would indicate that the Magistrate contemnor had called on the accused persons to furnish fresh surety, and, by so doing, he has committed contempt. The Magistrate has denied having asked the applicants to furnish security. But even if it is assumed that he had called upon the accused persons to furnish fresh security, it is doubtful if such action can be called contempt. The grant of bail by the Hight Court is not disobeyed by the mere fact of the trial Court asking the accused persons to furnish a fresh bond for appearance because, by so asking, the lower Court is only advancing and complying with the order of the High Court. If the High Court has granted bail, the obtaining of a bond b; the lower Court in consonance with that order may be construed to be a step in compliance with the provisions or the Criminal Procedure Code, so that a proper bond is available on .The record of the trial Court. This circum--stance, by itself, does not constitute contempt. On tae other hand, the fact of asking the applicant to furnish security is denied by every witness. Such denial is not controverted, because none of the applicants entered the Witness-Box. There is, as such, a substantial conflict on facts also. In these circumstances, I am of the view that no case for punishment of Mr. Abdul Jabbar Abbasi under the Contempt of. Courts Act is made out, and the application is dismissed.
10. After the short order was dictated and signed by me in Court, Mr. M. M. K. A. Zai submitted two applications before me for calling Mst. Gohar Sultana and her surety (not named). These applications were rejected, because the same were belated. In fact, Mst. Gohar Sultana, being the applicant, should have been present, and likewise her surety should also have been summoned earlier. It may be pointed out that, on 2nd May, 1982, an application had been made for summoning some witnesses, who ware indeed summoned and examined. The persons, sought to be called for giving evidence, after the order was pronounced, could have been summoned earlier.
11. These two applications have been rejected.