' Muhammad Ishaq, Zahida, Rehmat Bibi, Aisha, Shama Ishaq and Muhammad Abbas respondent stand involved in case F.I.R. No,274 of 1999 under sections 420/406/506, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Baghbanpura, Gtijranwala, on 1-6-1999. Muhammad Ishaq co-accused is brother of the respondent. Mst. Zahida is his wife. Rehmat Bibi is his mother. Aisha is his sister and Shama Ishaq is his sister-in-law.
2. It is alleged, inter alia, that the respondent ordered the petitioner for preparation of jewellery worth Rs,1, 00,000 and paid Rs,1,000 as earnest money. After jewellery was prepared, the same was taken and promised on the Holy Qur'an that the remaining amount would be paid to him on 15-7- 1997. The complainant/petitioner is stated to have contacted the respondent and his co-accused for several times but he was informed that the respondent had been turned out of the house and as such was not available. It is further stated that if Muhammad Abbas respondent does not turn up, they can make the payment by auctioning household articles. However, they kept on delaying the same on one pretext or the other.
3. The respondent and his co-accused moved applications for pre arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala. The co-accused of the respondent were admitted to bail before arrest which was subsequently confirmed on 16-6-1999. . However, the respondent being the main accused, his pre-arrest bail was not confirmed. He was taken into custody on 16-6-1999. The learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Gujranwala, just after a few days, admitted the respondent to bail on the ground that section 406, P.P.C. Was not attracted and the rest of the sections i,e, 420/506, P.P.C. Were bailable. Aggrieved by the order of admitting the respondent to bail, the petitioner has approached this Court, seeking cancellation of bail allowed to the respondent.
4. In support of the application, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued with vehemence that the respondent is a habitual offender. The jewellery or ornaments had been given to him which would be in a form of trust. The respondent promised to pay the price but thereafter neither the price was paid nor the jewellery was returned, as such, the same was misappropriate which fully attracts section 406, P.P.C. Further submits that the respondent being habitual is likely to defraud some other innocent persons as well. The respondent along with his learned counsel has been appearing in this Court and every time the promise was made that he would make the payment but not a single penny has been paid by him so far. Had the respondent made some payment, that at least provide an extenuating circumstance in his favor as a result of which the concession allowed to him would not have been withdrawn. In order to ascertain whether the respondent has criminal history to his discredit or not, the Investigating Officer, has been summoned. He states that there are two similar applications moved by two different persons against the respondent wherein similar allegations of fraud and cheating have been made.
Although regular cases have not been registered yet it is indicative of the fact that the respondent is not a clean person as has been portrayed by him. The learned Magistrate proceeded to admit him to bail on the ground that section 406 is not applicable although from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, it was clear that the respondent stood involved in the case meaning thereby section 406, P.P.C. Was applicable. The learned Magistrate by admitting the respondent to bail just after few days had not only acted illegally but also it is suggestive of something else as well. Be that as it may, the ing order is neither lawful nor justifiable. I, therefore, withdraw the same.
The bail allowed to the respondent, as such, is cancelled. He will surrender himself to the custody.##TE#