Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure—Bail—Bailable offence—Right, not discretion ----Ss. 496, 497 & 498, Cr.P.C.; S. 289-A, A.P.C.—Interpretation—Petitioner accused under S. 289-A A.P.C. sought post-arrest bail which was declined by Magistrate and Sessions Judge on the view that S. 295-A A.P.C. was also attracted—Held, the alleged offence under S. 289-A A.P.C. is bailable; in such offences, grant of bail is a right and not a favour—Courts have no discretion to refuse bail where the statute confers it as of right—Denial by the Courts below amounted to deviation from the settled law and misinterpretation of the statutory scheme. (b) Statutory construction—Interpretation of penal laws ----Rule of plain meaning—Courts must interpret the law as it is, not as it ought to be—Public sentiment or administrative considerations cannot justify denial of a statutory right—Where language of statute is clear and unambiguous, it must be given effect regardless of consequences—Maxwell’s Interpretation of Statutes, 7th Ed., applied. (c) Bail—Judicial discretion—Limits ----At the bail stage, a Court cannot speculate that a non-bailable offence may later be attracted unless the same is formally added or reflected in the police report under S. 173 Cr.P.C.—Right of bail in a bailable offence cannot be defeated on conjecture or by treating a different offence as “also attracted.” (d) Investigating agency and prosecution—Duties ----Investigating agency and Law Officers are bound to act within law; failure to add alleged non-bailable sections in the challan yet opposing bail on that ground reflects dereliction of statutory responsibility—Courts are not to shoulder investigative lapses. (e) Constitutional command—Binding precedent ----Under the AJK Interim Constitution, subordinate Courts are bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court and High Court—Deviation from binding precedent constitutes judicial impropriety. Held: Offence under S. 289-A A.P.C. being bailable, petitioner entitled to bail as of right; orders of Courts below refusing bail were illegal and set aside. Petitioner directed to be released on bail on furnishing surety bonds of Rs. 100,000 with two local sureties and personal bond in like amount to satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, Mirpur. Registrar directed to circulate judgment to all subordinate Courts for compliance. Cited Cases: 2022 SCR 714; 2009 SCR 345; 2001 SCR 481; 2013 SCR 134; 2015 SCR 744. Disposition: Revision petition accepted; bail granted forthwith.