SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J. - Petitioner Syed Nadeem Abbas sought interim pre-arrest bail till such time the matter is finally heard and disposed of by learned Addl. Sessons Judge, Multan on 28-2-1996, in case FIR No. 389/95 dated 28-11-1995, P.S. Gulgashat, Multan offence under section 10(3)(2), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance VII, 1979. The petitioner was granted interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Multan. The petition was dismissed on 6-2-1996 on account of absence of the petitioner from the Court.
2. It is submitted that absence of the petitioner at the time of h flaring on 6-2-1996 was not intentional or wilfull but as a matter of fact the petitioner had to go to the toilet to meet the call of nature.
3. Sub-sequently an other petition for grant of pre-arrest bail was moved on 7-2-1996 before the learned Sessions Judge, Multan which was entrusted to the same learned Add. Sessions Judge, and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge admitted the petition to hearing and issued notice to the State for 28-2-1996. According to the learned petitioner counsel the interim pre-arrest bail was not granted by the court. Being aggrieved, this petition has been filed.
4. Learned petitioner's counsel contended that the very purpose of application for bail before arrest is defeated if the interim bail is not granted, as the petitioner is likely to be arrested by the police before the next date of hearing.
5. There is much force in the contention of the learned counsel. The very purpose of the application for grant of pre-arrest bail i| to avoid the humiliation of being arrested by the police. The grant of bail before arrest is are but the courts do grant bail before arrest where it is felt that the petitioner has probably been falsely involved in a case and is likely to suffer irreparable injury to his dignity, respect and reputation. As such once an application for bail before arrest is admitted by a court for regular hearing, it should, in fitness of things, grant interim bail to the petitioner so that he is not arrested in the meanwhile, because otherwise there is no fun in entertaining and admitting the application. Reliance is placed on PLD 1974 Lahore 493 and 1970 P.Cr.L.J. 188.
3. I am of considered view that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has erred in not granting, interim bail to the petitioner, after admitting his application for regular hearing. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge on scrutiny of the application, if was hot satisfied about its merits, should have rejected the petition instantly so that the applicant can seek his remedy in the Superior Courts without any let or hindrance.
4. It is strange enough that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge after declining the grant of bail to the petitioner, fixed the petition for regular healing after about 21 days. In such cases, the matter should have been fixed for final hearing at the earliest possible date, because in cases of bail before arrest the accused persons should not be permitted to remain at large for a long period and the "sword of damocles" should not be kept hanging on the petitioner's head for a long period, especially when the interim bail is riot granted.
For what has been stated above, I giant interim pre-arrest bail to the petitioner till 28-2-1996 provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge who is seized of the matter. The bail petition stands disposed of.