1. The position in this case is that a complaint has been filed again: the present petitioner and another under section 193/196/197/198/199 200/465/468/471/34, P. P. C., which is at present pending before ti Assistant Commissioner with powers of Section 30 Magistrate, Sargodha who had issued bailable warrants for the appearance of the petitioners despite the fact that the offence (section 468, P. P. C.) among others for which the petitioner has been charged is non-bailable. Learned counts moved this Court, vide Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1315-B of 1982 for t grant of pre-arrest bail but, vide order dated 23rd May, 1982 of Mr. Just: Saeedur Rehman in that criminal miscellaneous the petitioner was direct to first move a petition for pre-arrest bail before the Sessions Court.
2. Compliance with this order he moved the Court of the Addition Sessions Judge, Sargodha, who dismissed the application vide his or dated 9th June, 1982 observing that the petitioner had moned through bailable warrant of arrest in the sum of Rs, 9th May, 1982 in order to secure the attendance of the in the trial Court. The Additional Sessions Judge proceede dismiss the application by stating that it did not lie against any order of the Assistant Commissioner and that if the petitioner deemed it fit he should approach the Assistant Commissioner for this purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that if the petitioner was to appear before the Assistant Commissioner (trial Court), the offence, of which he is charged, being non-bailable, he would order that the petitioner be given into the custody of the police and, therefore, the petitioner would be arrested. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner cannot move for prearrest bail before the trial Court as it has no power to grant that relief. It is then argued that initially in a non-bailable offence, when the Assistant Commissioner issued bailable warrant of arrest to summon the petitioner, the order was wrong. He should have summoned the petitioner through non-bailable warrant of arrest so that he could have moved the superior Courts for the grant of anticipatory bail for appearing before the Assistant Commissioner. In this connection learned counsel placed reliance on Amir Kalam Khan v.
3. Superintendent, Central Jail and another . There is substance in the argument of learned counsel.
4. The petitioner is prepared to appear before the trial Court in connection with the complaint case pending before it, but he is afraid that the offence of which he is charged being non-bailable, he would be arrested. He has, therefore, approached this Court for the grant of anticipatory bail.
5. In the light of what has been discussed above, the pre-arrest bail already allowed in favour of the petitioner is hereby confirmed. H should appear before the Assistant Commissioner in the complaint case on the 4th of July, 1982 alongwith the copy of this order and the Assistant Commissioner is hereby directed to proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible. With these observations this petition is disposed of.
2. A copy of this order should be given dasti to the petitioner on payment of usual charges. PLD 1975 Lah. 1390