' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, against judgment dated 27-2-2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Criminal Miscellaneous No,585/B of 2004 whereby the pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. A criminal case F.I.R. No,3 of 2004 dated 2-1-2004 under section 365, P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioner and others at police Station Samanabad, Lahore, on the complaint of one Muhammad Ashraf. The complainant alleged therein that on 15-6-2003, while he was proceeding to Mehr Hotel after offering Esha prayers, white colour Suzuki car intercepted him. The present petitioner, Amjad Butt and another person known as Cheema came out of the car. One of them placed a Mouser pistol op his temple and then all the accused pushed him into the car. The complainant further stated that he was taken to some unknown place and was confined in a shop where the accused Cheema kept watch on him. During the night, the petitioner administered an injection to him. When the complainant regained consciousness on the next day, the petitioner and other accused forced him to sign certain documents. The complainant managed to escape on the third day.
3. The complainant approached the police by making a written complaint which was inquired into and was found to be false. The complainant was proceeded against under section 182, P.P.C.
Thereafter, the aforesaid F.I.R. Was registered pursuant to an order passed by an Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lahore, on the application of the complainant.
4. The petitioner moved an application for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, by order, dated 19-1-2004. He also moved the Lahore High Court, through Criminal Miscellaneous No,585/B of 2004 for the same relief which was declined, by the impugned order, dated 27-2-2004. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there was a delay of about 6 months in lodging the F.I.R. And that the complainant of this case had already been proceeded against under section 182, P.P.C. For giving a false information/application to the police. The story narrated by the prosecution was false and unbelievable.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submitted that according to the police investigation of the F.I.R., the petitioner was found guilty. The petitioner had not joined the police investigation so far and his co-accused were also at large.
7. We have heard both the learned counsel for some time. From the record produced before us by the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner is, prima facie, involved in commission of the offence falling within the prohibition of section 497, Cr.P.C. The allegations against the 'petitioner are serious in nature. The petitioner does not appear to have joined the investigation. Since the police had declined to register the case, therefore, the complainant was justified to approach the Sessions Court in the matter. The discretion exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge as well as by the High Court in declining the extraordinary concession of grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner does not call for -interference by this Court. The petitioner failed to satisfy necessary conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition for pre-arrest bail which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. However, the above observations shall not be construed to prejudice the case of the petitioner for the grant of post-arrest bail in due course on merits.