1. ' This is an applicatipn for bail before arrest. It has been alleged by the petitioner that he is a journalist and respectable citizen. He has not committed any offence and did not cause any loss to the Government treasury He never used any office or rest house illegally. A false story has been manufactured against him. The interim bail was allowed to him. A notice was issued to the Ehtesab Bureau. Arguments have been heard.
2. ' Mr. Abdul Majeed Malick, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that according to the prosecution, the petitioner availed the facility of accommodation in the Kashmir House (a rest house) for a considerable period. The amount of rent and other charges of Rs, 3,33,127 were outstanding against him. He did not pay the same, therefore, he is a wilful defaulter.
3. ' He referred section 4 (u), wherein wilful defaulter has been defined and submitted that according to the aforesaid definition a wilful defaulter means, "a person who does not pay or repay the amount to any bank, financial institution or to the authority established or controlled by the Government, etc. on the date when it became due as per agreement containing the objection to pay". While interpreting the definition of wilful defaulter, he submitted that according to the words used in the definition, a person is wilful defaulter if he does not make the payment according to the agreement. He submitted that where the terms of the agreement contained an obligation to pay the amount and if one did not fulfil such obligation, then he shall be termed as wilful defaulter. He further maintained that the aforesaid definition only deals with the transactions, which have taken place under some agreement. While there was no agreement between the petitioner and the Administration of Kashmir House. Therefore, he could not be termed as a wilful defaulter, and when he does not come within the ambit of wilful defaulter, then prima facie, no offence is established against him.
4. ' It was next submitted by him that section 21(3) of the Ehtesab Act contains that "where the Chairman or an Officer of the Ehtesab Bureau duly authorised by him, if is of the opinion that it is, or may be necessary and appropriate to initiate proceeding against any person, he shall refer the matter for inquiry or investigation". He submitted that the aforesaid provision clearly conveys that whenever the Chairman or an Officer of Ehtesab Bureau is of the opinion that the matter referred to him deserve for inquiry or investigation then he shall refer the matter for inquiry or investigation. He submitted that the basic purpose for referring the matter for inquiry or investigation was to ascertain as to whether there was some substance in the complaint and only after the investigation or completion of the inquiry, it can be ascertained that there is some substance. In case,' some substance is found only then the warrant can be issued. In this case, without referring the matter for inquiry or investigation, he issued the warrant without applying his mind to the complaint. The moment, he received the complaint, he issued the warrant mechnically. He did not ascertain whether there was any substance in the complaint or not. Therefore, the petitioner deserves for the concession of bail.
5. ' While delivering the arguments on merit of the case, he contended that the petitioner is a journalist. He was not entitled to the accommodation in the Kashmir House. He never applied or requested for the reservation of any room. There is nothing on the record, on the basis of which, it could be said, that he ever applied or requested for the reservation in the Kashmir House. He submitted that according to the record, the reservation was obtained by the Prime Minister of Azad Jummu and Kashmir. The petitioner was shown, as a guest of the Prime Minister, therefore, the bill was to be paid by the Prime Minister. He further submitted that the petitioner never lived in the Kashmir House. It might be known to the Prime Minister, that who availed the accommodation in the name of the petitioner because, he obtained the reservation in the name of the petitioner. It was not contended by him that some other persons also availed the accommodation of the Kashmir House, being the guest of the Prime Minister and in the record, they too were shown as the guests of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has made the payment. If the Prime Minister obtained the reservation in the name of the petitioner, then he is liable for the payment. It was also submitted by him that even according to the record of the Ehtesab Bureau, the tenure in which, the petitioner was shown as staying in the Kashmir House, it was not offence under the Ehtesab Act and no person can be punished for the liability, which was not offence at the time of its commission.
6. ' While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, the learned Chief Prosecutor strenuously argued that the petitioner utilized the accommodation of the rest house and did not make any payment. An amount of Rs, 3,33,127 is outstanding against him. He referred section 4 of the Ehtesab Act, wherein the wilful defaulter has been defined. He submitted that under section 10(h) of the Ehtesab Act, a wilful default comes within the ambit of corruption and corrupt practices. Punishment for corruption and corrupt practices has been provided in section 11 of the Ehtesab Act, which is fourteen years. He also submitted that the offence under section 11 of the Ehtesab Act is punishable with the imprisonment of fourteen years, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. It was next contended by him that no doubt under section 21(3) of the Ehtesab Act, the Chairman Ehtesab Bureau has to refer the matter for inquiry or investigation. In the instant case, he referred the matter for investigation.
7. ' The learned Chief Prosecutor was confronted to explain, whether the warrant was issued after the report of the inquiry or investigation. He submitted that the matter was referred to Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Director for investigation on 8-2-2001, and on the same day, the warrant was issued. It was next contended by him, that there is one request of the petitioner for reservation of the room in the Kashmir House. He referred a photo stat attested copy of the receipt of the Kashmir House and submitted that it was a request for the reservation of the rest house. He was further confronted to explain that when the petitioner was shown as the guest of the Prime Minister, then how he was liable to any payment. Whether the Prime Minister has made the payment of others, who have been shown as his guests. He submitted that no doubt that he has been shown as guest of the Prime Minister. He further submitted that he heard, that the Prime Minister has made the payment of those persons who were shown as his guests. It was next contended by him that the petitioner does not deserve for the concession of bail. Therefore, the concession of bail before arrest may not be extended to him.
8. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Chief Prosecutor and perused the record.
9. This Court while considering the bail application, shall not embark upon the meticulous appreciation of evidence. Just tentative assessment of the evidence will be made and if from the tentative assessm ent of the evidence, an inference can he drawn that no reasonable grounds appear to have been made out against the petitioner and further inquiry into guilt is required then the concession of bail shall be allowed to him At the same time, it would not be out of place to mention here that if the offence is punishable with the sentence of death or imprisonment, then the bail should not lie allowed, provided the reasonable grounds appear to have been made out against the accused.
10. It is also pertinent to note, that the Court shall also make the tentative assessment of allegations and if from such assessm ent comes to the tentative conclusion, that ultimately the merits of the case may not warrant for such sentence, then also the concession of bail shall be extended to him.
11. It is also to be noted that where the inquiry has been conducted, in such manners, that it is difficult to assume conclusively that the petitioner has committed the offence, then the concession of bail shall also be allowed to the accused.
12. It is also celebrated principle of law, that there is no legal or moral compulsion to keep the accused person in the detention, merely on the allegation, that he had committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and if the concession of bail is allowed to him, but ultimately, he is convicted after the conclusion of the trial, it can repair the wrong caused by the grant of interim bail, but no satisfactory reparation, can he afforded to the accused person for his unjustified detention, if he is acquitted after the trial. This view finds support from PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 8.
13. I have perused the record minutely. In the instant case, the allegation against the petitioner is that he ultilized the accommodation of the rest house. The primary question requiring determination is that whether the petitioner moved any application or made any request for the reservation of the rest house. The learned Chief Prosecutor was confronted to point out any request for the reservation made by the petitioner. He referred a photo stat of receipt, in which, the column of the number is blank, the column of the address is also blank, and it is a receipt, which is normally delivered to the consumer after making the payment of the rent. Therefore, it could not be termed as a request for the reservation of the rest house. Moreover, the perusal of the entire record shows that the petitioner was shown residing in the rest house, as the guest of the Prime Minister. It clearly conveys that the reservation of the rest house was obtained by the Prime Minister, in the name of the petitioner. He was simply shown the guest of the Prime Minister. There is also a letter written by the Secretary to the Prime Minister to the Deputy Chairman Ehtesab Bureau regarding the payment of the bills pertaining to the guests of the Prime Minister, which is as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}} ' The aforesaid letter clearly shows that the Prime Minister was negotiating with the Ehtesab Bureau for the payment of bills of his guests, and if the petitioner was also a guest of the Prime Minister, then the Prime Minister was liable for the payment. It would not be out of place to mention here that list of the defaulters was prepared, wherein at No,8, the name of the petitioner was written as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' It clearly shows that he was the guest of the Prime Minister and reservation was obtained by the Prime Minister and this accommodation was provided to the petitioner by the Prime Minister. It is also pertinent to note, that a Bill was sent to the petitioner by the Estate Officer Kashmir House, Islamabad on 26-3-1999 and in this bill the address of the petitioner was as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} There is nothing on the record, on the basis of which it could be said that the petitioner ever made any request for the reservation of the rest house, but the reservation was arranged by the Prime Minister of Azad Jummu and Kashmir and the petitioner resided in the rest house, as the guest of the Prime Minister of Azad Jummu and Kashmir.
14. The upshot of the above discussion is that, it yet requires further inquiry, whether the petitioner himself obtained any reservation in the Kashmir House and the bill is to be paid by him or the Prime Minister. Therefore, the interim to him is hereby 'confirmed Pre-arrest .