' RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.--- On 10-11-1994 a case under sections 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered against respondent No,1, Ch. Shujaat Hussain and others with Police Station F.IA./S.I.U., Islamabad vide F.I.R. No,11/1994. In pith and substance, allegation was that the accused in the case had obtained a sum of Rs,300 million as loan from Financial Institutions by committing fraud and misrepresentation. Vide order, dated 27-11-1994, Mr. Justice (Retd.) Mian Qurban Sadiq Ikram, learned Judge, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore admitted the respondent to ad interim bail in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 (Rupees ten lacs) with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction and also issued notice to the State for 18- 121994. The validity of the said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with sections 561-A and 497(5) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. This petition was admitted to regular hearing by a Division Bench of this Court and notice was issued to the respondent for 5-12-1994. On the said date, on an application of the respondent, the Honourable Chief Justice constituted this Full Bench for hearing this petition. In support of the petition, Mian Abdul Sattar Najam, learned Advocate- General argues that learned Judge, Special Court had no jurisdiction to give bail relief to the respondent without issuing notice to the State. He adds that the amount in the bail granting order was not fixed keeping in view the money involved in the case. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon section 5(7) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984. He also relies upon Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan 1994 SCMR 2142; Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Khalid Farooq 1991 SCMR 599; Collector, Sahiwal v. Muhammad Akhtar 1971 SCMR 681 and Asif Ali Zardari v. Special Judge (Offences in Banks) PLD 1992 Kar.
437. Learned Law Officer maintains that the impugned order is thus a nullity in law and has to be set aside in the above situation.
2. Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, learned counsel for the contesting respondent contends that all these points which are now being argued can he raised before the learned Judge, who is seized of the matter on the date already fixed.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length and also going through the record, we have come to the conclusion that this C petition cannot proceed further because the bail petition of respondent No,1 is still pending adjudication before the learned trial Judge. It is well- settled that the point of jurisdiction has to be raised first of all before the forum where the matter is pending. Be that as it may, the petitioner, if so advised, may raise these points before the learned trial Judge. Nonetheless, the bail bond in the sum of Rupees ten lacs appears to be inadequate keeping in view the huge amount of money, the subject of commission of alleged crime. To that extent, the objection of the learned Advocate-General appears to be justified. The final date fixed for hearing of the case is also shortened keeping in view the interest of law. The learned Judge shall, therefore, hear and decide the bail petition alongwith the objections of the petitioner finally on or before 13-12-1994 instead of 18-12-1994. The parties shall appear before the learned Judge on 8-12-1994, alongwith their learned counsel. In other words, the impugned interim order, dated 27-11- 1994 is hereby modified by directing that in the meantime, the respondent No,1 shall furnish a fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs,2,00,00,000 (Rupees two crore) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge. With this modification in the impugned order, this petition is disposed of.