' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The appellants, with the leave of this Court, have challenged the order of the learned Judge in Chambers dated 17-10-1994 whereby bail granted to them was recalled.
2. One Syed Hashim Raza real brother of Syed Abbas Raza Rizvi appellant No,2 and uncle of Syed Ahmed Ali Rizvi appellant No,1 filed Habeas Corpus Petition No,9805/94 praying that they have been detained by Director-General F.IA. And Inspector F.IA. Illegally and that they may be set at liberty.
Appellant No,2 was arrested on 22nd August, .1994 when he arrived from New York. It transpired that they had been arrested on the basis of F.I.R. No, 103/1994 registered at F.I.A. Passport Cell Lahore under section 18/22 of the Emigration Ordinance alleging that in the raid conducted at the residence of Kaneez Fatima Bokhari wife of Syed Abbas Raza Rizvi, House No,836, Raza Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore in the presence of Hashim Raza, Ahmed Ali Rizvi appellant No,1 on search 9 foreign passports with 3 Immigration Cards, Residential Alien USA Department of Justice and Alien Registration Receipt were recovered and taken into custody. Other papers were also recovered which were used in forging the documents for defrauding the people on the pretext of sending them abroad. The appellants applied for bail before the Special Judge Central, Lahore who by order dated 23-8-1994 admitted them to bail. It was alleged that on 24-8-1994 at about 10-30. a.m.
Robkar of the learned Court was presented before the Director-General F.I.A. And the Inspector F.I.A.
But acting mala fide with ulterior motives they avoided the release on one pretext or the other and finally refused. It was further alleged that the F.IA. Authorities were shown the invitation card that appellant No,1 was to be married on 26-8-1994 but in spite of the bail granted by the learned trial Court they were not released. Thereupon, Syed Hashim Raza filed petition for habeas corpus bearing No,9805/1994. The learned Single Judge by order dated 25-8-1994 directed the F.IA.
Authorities to produce the appellants in Court on 28-8-1994. On that date the Deputy Attorney- General had contended that the appellants were in "legal custody" in case under F.I.R. No,46 dated 20-2-1994 under section 149/420/468/471 of the P.P.C. Of F.IA. Passport Cell, Rawalpindi for three days which was to expire on 30th August, 1994. In the circumstances the learned Judge ordered the Deputy Attorney-General to direct the respondents to produce all relevant record on 31st August, 1994.. On the date of hearing the learned Judge passed the following order:-- "I have heard the parties and gone through the record. The petitioner has mentioned in para. 4 of writ petition that on 24-8-1994 at 10.30 a.m. Robkar of learned Court was presented before respondents Nos.3 and 4 but as they were acting mala fide with ulterior motives refused to release the accused. Affidavit with regard to the correctness of the writ petition is also attached with the writ petition. Later on, the detenus were forcibly taken from Lahore to Rawalpindi.
7. The involvement of Syed Abbas Raza Rizvi and Syed Ahmed Ali Rizvi in case F.I.R. No, 46, dated 20- 2-1994 under section 419/420/468/471, P.P.C. Of FLA. Passport Cell, Rawalpindi seems to be afterthought. This being the position I convert this writ petition into bail petition, without touching the merits of the case. Syed Abbas Raza Rizvi and Syed Ahmed Ali Rizvi accused are admitted to bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Lahore Saddar."
' The appellants were thus granted bail. The respondents applied for its cancellation and contended that as F.I.R. No,46 pertains to Rawalpindi Bench the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance. The application was allowed in the following manner:-- "I have heard the arguments and gone through the file. Admittedly F.I.R. No,46, dated 20-2-1994 under section 419/420/468/471, P.P.C. Registered at Passport Cell, Rawalpindi Bench but this point was never raised during the course of arguments and this factum was suppressed. This being the position I, therefore, withdraw the bail granted to Syed Abbas Raza Rizvi and Syed Ahmad Ali Rizvi respondents and recall my orders dated 31-8-1994 pertaining to the conversion of writ petition into bail petition. Syed Abbas Raza Rizvi and Syed Ahmad All fUzvi were in legal custody in F.I.R. No,46, dated 29-2-1994 and Writ Petition No, 9805/94 stands disposed of as being infructuous."
Leave was granted to consider whether in the circumstances the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail.
3. The bail was cancelled by the impugned order merely on the ground that the petitioners were arrested under F.I.R. No,46, dated 20th February, 1994 registered at Passport Cell, Rawalpindi Bench which according to the impugned judgment was not brought to the notice of the learned Judge and that sitting at Lahore he could not have passed the order converting a habeas corpus petition into bail petition and grant the same. All these two grounds seem to be completely misconceived.
From the narration of facts as stated in the two orders quoted above it is clear that the petitioners were arrested at Lahore under F.I.R. No,103 of 1994 registered at Passport Cell, Lahore. When bail was granted the authorities did not release the petitioners but transported them from Lahore to Rawalpindi. This fact was noted down in the order dated 31st August, 1994 and it was observed that the plea that the petitioners are involved in case under F.I.R. No,46, dated 20th February, 1994 of F.IA.
Passport Cell, Rawalpindi was an "afterthought". The learned Judge was conscious of the fact that Passport/Immigration Authorities in order to justify their action in not releasing the petitioners on receipt of the bail order, set up a plea that they were also involved in the case registered with the Passport Cell, Rawalpindi. It was thus clear that not only that the respondents' action was considered "afterthought" it was also known that the second F.I.R. Originated from Rawalpindi where the petitioners were sent. In such circumstances the observation that the fact that the second F.I.R. Originated from Rawalpindi was suppressed can hardly have any justification. There seems to be self-contradiction in the two orders and for cancellation of the bail technical and misconceived grounds were raised and accepted by the Court. We may observe that grant of bail is not a favour or concession but it is a right of the detenus regulated by law. The Courts as custodians of citizens' liberty are duty bound to examine with care and caution and take notice of actions taken by persons/authorities to frustrate the order of the Court. Even if for argument sake it may be accepted, which is not possible here, that because the second F.I.R. Originated from Rawalpindi the case should have been heard by a Judge of the Rawalpindi Bench, it can afford no ground to justify the impugned order. It can be seen that the arrest was made at Lahore from where in spite of the order granting bail the petitioners were not released and transported to Rawalpindi without any permission or information to the Court. Such actions should not be ignored, by-passed or justified.
4. The learned Judge had taken the view that the case should have been heard by a Judge of Rawalpindi Bench. The Benches of the Lahore High Court were created under Article 198 of the Constitution. The principal seat of the Lahore High Court is at Lahore. The Benches of the Lahore High Court were created at Bahawalpur, Multan and Rawalpindi. The working of these Benches is regulated by the Lahore High Court (Establishment of Benches) Rules, 1981. Rule 3 provides that 'all matters arising within the area assigned to a Bench shall be filed before and disposed of by that Bench'. This may be the territorial limit of the Benches administratively fixed by Rule but it cannot curtail or limit the jurisdiction conferred on a Judge of the High Court by Constitution and law and he can exercise such jurisdiction throughout the C territorial limits of the High Court. In spite of the above rule a Judge sitting at the Principal Seat of the High court having Benches can exercise jurisdiction within the entire territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. A Judge sitting at the Principal Seat of a High Court having Benches, cannot be said to have no jurisdiction to hear cases which arise or originate within the territorial jurisdiction of those Benches. But such cases should, unless otherwise ordered, be heard at the seat of the Bench for administrative reasons.. However, preferably in cases where liberty of citizens is involved or habeas corpus petition has been filed the same can be entertained at the Principal Seat of the High Court in respect of the entire territorial jurisdiction of the High Court. In the present case the petition was filed challenging the arrest at Lahore in which bail was granted but the authorities concerned with a view to frustrate the said order, involved the petitioners in the F.I.R. Registered at Rawalpindi. In such circumstances the authorities by involving a person in different cases arising within the territorial jurisdiction of different Benches cannot deprive a person from invoking the jurisdiction of High Court at its principal seat. Where actions are mala fide intended to frustrate or obstruct the process of law or harass a person depriving him of his liberty by involving him in cases pertaining to different Benches technicalities should not stand in the way of justice. And being so satisfied, a Judge of the High Court sitting at Bench can exercise jurisdiction in respect of matter arising in an area assigned to any other Bench. The learned Judge seized of the matter, knowing well that such action was an `afterthought', mala fide or intended to frustrate the order should not have refused to exercise jurisdiction and wash his hands off the case.
5. We have examined the F.I.R. No,46 of 1994 in which Muhammad Amin was arrested when he had presented his Passport No,2416523 dated 9-4-1992 issued from New York and Green Card as they were alleged to be forged. In this F.I.R. The petitioners have not been named. The learned counsel for the State however contended that during investigation a witness has named the petitioners for providing the travel documents. The allegation is too feeble at this stage to connect them with the offence. We allow the appeal. The appellants are on interim bail which is confirmed. The learned Deputy Attorney-General has stated that the challan will be submitted before 15-4-1995. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the case day to day.