ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court directed the Lahore High Court on Wednesday to decide an intra-court appeal (ICA) filed by the Punjab government on Aug 21, failing which a suspension order against the grant of protective bail by a single-judge bench to former Punjab chief minister Chaudhry Parvez Elahi would stand vacated and he would be entitled to protective bail, as well as bail against blind FIRs.
The order came after a three-judge bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Ijazul Ahsan, took up the Punjab PTI chief’s plea against a decision by the LHC on July 17 to overturn a previous order in which a 10-day protective bail was granted to the petitioner with a directive to the authorities not to arrest him in any pending inquiry or in any blind or unknown FIRs.
Moved through senior counsel Barrister Syed Ali Zafar on behalf of the PTI’s Punjab president, the petition had pleaded to set aside the July 17 intra-court appeal in the interest of justice for being unconstitutional, illegal, void ab initio, and without lawful jurisdiction.
The division bench had suspended the single-judge order without a hearing, the counsel argued, adding that it was Chaudhry Parvez Elahi’s right to seek access to a court in order to get pre-arrest bails.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court wondered why the government was bent upon denying an individual’s fundamental right to approach a court for the protection of liberty.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhel advised the parties concerned to settle the matter through negotiations instead of approaching courts.
The counsel recalled that repeated FIRs had been registered against Parvez Elahi to ensure that he remained in custody and was unable to reach courts for pre-arrest and post-arrest bails.
It is a fundamental principle of law, the counsel asserted, that high courts grant protective bail to an accused so that the person could reach the trial court for pre-arrest bails.
Ali Zafar said that under the law, the Federal Investigation Agency and the Anti-Corruption Department cannot arrest anyone without giving an accused the right of hearing during an inquiry.
‘Blind FIRs’
He alleged that Parvez Elahi was being arrested in “blind FIRs”.
In his petition, the appellant called upon the apex court to order the authorities that the petitioner be treated with dignity, and in accordance with constitutional guarantees.
He should not be harassed or arrested in new or unknown cases, pending inquiries without a hearing or in old FIRs in which protective, anticipatory or post-arrest bail has already been granted.
“Unfortunately, the petitioner was subjected to repeated detentions and arrests upon discharge in frivolous cases in a mala fide abuse of authority,” Ali Zafar said.
Moreover, he added, legal provisions of criminal procedure, e.g. 24-hour remand, are being employed as tools to keep the petitioner perpetually detained by lodging a new FIR on the very day when the petitioner obtained protective bail, pre-arrest or anticipatory bail or post-arrest bail in a different FIR.
The petition argued that the July 17 order by the Lahore High Court was illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and void ab initio and therefore liable to be set aside.
“The order is arbitrary and against the well-settled principles of law, amounting to a gross miscarriage of justice for the petitioner,” Ali Zafar contended.
The petition argued that no ICA was maintainable under the Law Reforms Ordinance of 1972 against the July 13 judgement of a single-judge bench and hence the division bench lacked the jurisdiction to pass the order.
Published in Dawn, August 17th, 2023
