KHALID PAUL KHWAJA, J.- On 21-6-1993, on the writ petition filed by the present petitioners the following order was made: "Learned Advocate-General is directed to i.e a complete list, within one week, of the criminal cases against the petitioners in which the Punjab Police wants to arrest the petitioners. Till such time the petitioners shall not be arrested without the permission of the High Court. If the Punjab Police intends to arrest them, it shall place before the High Court material on the basis of which such arrests are intended."
2. The learned Advocate-General through C.M. No. 1334 of 1993 seeks, the withdrawal of the above order. He has placed bn record material to show that the following 23 petitioners are required in case FI1 No. 118 of 1993 registered at Police Station Race Course, Lahore commonly known as "Habib Ullah abduction case":
1. Ch. Wajahat Hussain.
2. Ch. Muhammad Riaz.
3. Akhtar Abbas Bharwana.
4. Akhtar Rasool.
5. Ijaz Ahmed Sheikh.
6. Ghulam Haider Wyne.
7. Binyamin Rizvi.
8. Ch. Shaukat Ali.
9. Sohail Zia Butt.
10. Muhammad Aslam Bharwana.
11. S.A. Hameed.
12. Shaukat Tarar.
13. Ghazanfar Ali Bharwana.
14. Zafar Iqbal.
15. Imran Samad.
16. Raja Ashfaq Sarwar.
17. Raja Muhammad Basharat.
18. Raja Javed Ikhlaq.
19. Badshah Sher Khan Afridi.
20. Ch. Ghulam Sarwar Boochh.
21. Malik Muhammad Zakir
22. Ch. Masood Ahmed.
23. Muhammad Afzal Sahi.
He states that the above mentioned petitioners have been challaned and the case against them is pending in the court of the learned Special Judge Anti Terrorist Activities, Lahore.
3. As regards the remaining 115 petitioners the learned Advocate- General candidly states that they are not required in any case and the respondents do not want or intend to arrest them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the learned Advocate- General has not complied with the order of the court dated 21-6-1993 inasmuch as no material has been placed on record to justify the arrest of the above mentioned 23 petitioners and that a mere copy of the FIR and a report under section 173 Cr.PC were not enough. He submits that originally only three accused were named in the FIR but there is nothing on record to show as to how .20 more were added. He further submitted that it was the duty of the learned Advocate General to place before the court material to justify the arrest of the above mentioned 23 petitioners. He, however, requests that THE be allowed to the said petitioners to enable them to approach the appropriate court for their bail.
5. The learned Advocate-General has opposed the above request of the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that no concession of bail before arrest could be extended to the said petitioners because they had neither surrendered nor entered appearance in person in this court.
He further maintained that the protective order in their favour was passed to enable them to perform their constitutional obligation by attending the Provincial Assembly Session and since the said Assembly stood dissolved their writ petition had become infructuous which should be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had sought the protection of this court from harassm ent, victimization, and illegal arrest at the hands of the respondents which they apprehended on account of the political rivalry between the two political groups in the Assembly i.e. Party in power and the opposition. He maintained that the atmosphere of hostility still existed and need for the protection of court was more acute than ever. He emphasised that the instant writ petition was a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and not an application for bail under sections 497, 498 and 498-A Cropland thus the petitioners were not required to put in personal attendance before the court. He asserted that in view of the extraordinary circumstances prevailing in this part of the country even the personal attendance of the petitioners in an application for bail before arrest could have been dispensed with. In this regard he referred to Abdul Hamid Khan Jatoi Vs. The State (1973 P.Cr.L.J 1032).
7. Be that as it may, only 23 above mentioned petitioners are required in Habib Ullah abduction case. The rest of the petitioners are not wanted in any criminal case and therefore, in view of the solemn assurance of the learned Advocate General in this court that they would not be arrested, they have nothing to worry. So far as they are concerned it would be considered that their petition has borne fruit.
8. As regards 23 petitioners mentioned above one namely Ijaz Ahmed Sheikh is stated to be on bail by a learned Bench of this court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the other petitioners is at par with him. He has also referred to the statement of Ch. Habib Ullah the abductee under section 164 Cr.PC dated 13-6-1993 (appended with the connected Crl.Misc.No.l82/Q/93 titled "Ch. Wajahat Hussain Vs. The State") which he made before the learned Assistant Commissioner, Islamabad wherein he has denied that he was ever abducted. In this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the aforementioned 23 petitioners are entitled to the extension of the protective order dated 21-6-1993 of this court to enable them to approach the appropriate court for their bail before arrest. I, therefore, extend that order for three more days i.e for the 4th, 5th and 6th of July, 1993. If they do not succeed in getting bail during this period the respondents would be at liberty to arrest them.
9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.