' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment/order of the Peshawar High Court dated 22-7-1989 by which bail before arrest was refused to him.
2. The petitioner's bail before arrest was not confirmed by the Peshawar High Court by the impugned order dated 22-7-1989. In consequence he was arrested forthwith. It is said, and this is subject to verification, that a petition for bail after arrest is pending before the Magistrate, and another challenging his remand to police custody, before the Sessions Judge.
3. With the arrest of the petitioner, the question of bail before arrest to him has become academic, and quite different considerations will now determine to what relief he is now entitled. The factual background, the stage and the requirement of investigation, the availability or otherwise of other accused and other such factors will require consideration which ordinarily have not that weightage in a matter of bail before arrest. Besides, by entering into the domain of bail before arrest at this stage, we will be seriously prejudicing the handling of various other petitions now pending before the subordinate Courts where ordinarily both the factual and legal aspects of the case have to be sorted out in the first instance, and this Court has to review them in appeal.
4. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner himself, this Court has comprehensively laid down the law on the question of bail before arrest e.g. In Ch. Zahur llahi v. The State 1981 SCMR 935, Murad Khan v. Fazal-eSuhhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82, Meeran Bux v. The State 1988 S CM R 1217, followed by PLD 1989 SC 347 and no addition to it on the academic plane is either called for or necessary, particularly by reference to this case and at this stage.
5. We do not consider this case at this stage to be a fit case for leave to appeal and hence leave to appeal is refused.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has requested us that an observation he made in this order that the test somewhat prematurely applied by the High Court in para.8 of the impugned judgment may not be taken by the High Court or Courts subordinate to it to prejudice the matter of pending application of the petitioner for bail after arrest. The other is that an observation be made that in view of the nature of the proceedings and the belated stage at which the petitioner has been implicated there will be expeditious disposal of the pending matters.
7. Observations made in an order dealing with a matter of bail before arrest do no ordinarily and should not generally affect the exercise undertaken or to be undertaken after arrest, for grant or refusal of bail. We are sure that the Courts will follow that principle and be not prejudiced in any manner thereby. We are also confident that keeping in view the nature of the proceedings an early and expeditious disposal of the matter will be ensured at every level.