1. ' This revision petition was moved by the learned Additional Advocate-General against order dated 22-2-1982 by which the respondents were let off on bail during the investigation of the case under section 5/16, 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancee read with sections 342 and 109, P. C. Registered by the police. In this case, the District Magistrate even allowed pre-arrest bail to a number of other persons accused of the aforesaid offences which was granted to them by his order dated 18-2-1982. This case was registered under the provisions of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance read with some of the offences committed under sections 342 and 109, P. C. In relation to the offences committed under some of the sections of the Hudood Ordinance as aforesaid. It was contended by the learned Additional Advocate-General that the District Magistrate has no power to grant bail to a person arrested for the commission of the offences which are to be tried either by a Tehsil Criminal Court or a District Criminal Court. These are the Courts dealing with the offences falling under the provisions of. Shariat Laws. Obviously, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to grant bail to the persons accused of the offences mentioned above. It is also apparent from the record that the pre-arrest bails in absence of the Sessions Judge were granted to the accused who were not before him for their pre-arrest bail sought. It was presented through the counsel. Under law no pre-arrest bail could have been granted to a person accused of an offence who does not submit himself to the Court for the purpose. Now, no pre-arrest bail can even be granted alone by the Sessions Judge in matters within the purview of Shariat Law vide Shariat Court Ordinance with regard to application of Criminal Procedure Code. The pre-arrest bail application was presented to the Magistrate after the Court hours and it appears that accused were not brought before him by the counsel who presented the application before him. The order passed by the Magistrate on the face of the application is in these words :- {{URDU TEXT}} This much was the only order passed by the District Magistrate while granting application but afterwards it seems that an order of the even date was written by the clerk of the District Magistrate in which presence of the accused was wrongly shown. The order dated 18-2-1982 written by the clerk and the impugned order under revision made by the District Magistrate when read together indicate that the accused Manzoor Hussain and others nine in number were not before the Court when the order for their pre-arrest bail was passed by the District Magistrate. A Magistrate of the status of a District Magistrate is not expected to deal lightly with the matters relating to the commission of offences in an illegal way even without knowing the limits and bounds of law under which he is to act.
2. The non-applicants have not appeared before this Court who are reported to have avoided service for their appearance before the Court. The revision petition before this Court against the order of the District Magistrate may not be competent and so the learned Additional Advocate-General is directed to move the District Magistrate in the matter.
3. That being so no order either way is passed on this application. The matter is left to be set right by the District Magistrate himself or the High Court, as the case may be.