ORDER Through the instant writ petition the petitioner impugns the order dated 21.7.2004 whereby he had been admitted to post arrest bail by the learned Judge Special Court (Offences in respect of Banks) Lahore.
2. The petitioner had been involved in a case bearing FIR No. 2/2004 registered at Police Station FIA- CCC Lahore on 17.9.2003. The allegation in the FIR registered at the instance of Masood Qadir, Group Vice President Prime Commercial Bank Ltd. Lahore, was that a sum of Rs. 8 lac had been withdrawn from the account maintained by Ali Raza Kazmi over and above his actual balance, in a fraudulent and deceitful manner. During the course of investigation the petitioner was also found involved in the said case, although his name did not figure in the FIR.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 10.6.2004. He applied for his post arrest bail before the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore which was granted to him by the said Court vide its impugned order dated 21.7.2004. in the bail granting order the learned Special Court noted that the petitioner had deposited an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 8.6.2003 and had agreed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 6 lac in 12 equal installments, it observed that since the petitioner had agreed to settle the dispute with the complainant by depositing Rs. 2 lac and was willing to deposit the remaining amount, therefore, he had become entitled to the grant of bail. Resultantly the learned Trial Court granted bail and observed in paragraph No. 3 of the said order as under:- "For what has been said above, I accept this application and admit Inam ul Haq petitioner- accused to bail in the sum of Rs.
5. Lac with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court with the direction to appear before this Court as and when required and to continue depositing the remaining amount of S. 6. Lac in 12 equal installments, in case Inam ul Haq petitioner shall make default towards deposit of two installments, the complainant may file the petition for the cancellation of his bail and withdrawal of this order."
4. The petitioner has now assailed the said bail granting order.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the amount of Rs. 2 lac had been deposited by him with the Investigating Officer to show his bona fides and was meant "only to serve as security towards bonafides of the petitioner"; that the impression of the Trial Court that any agreement had been arrived at between the parties was not correct; that the conditional bail order was beyond the purview of Sec. 497 Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner was being made to pay the amount which had allegedly been received by Ali Raza Kazmi co-accused who was the actual account- holder. He finally argued that the petitioner could not be saddled with any criminal liability and as such could not have been asked to pay the amount in question.
6. We have heard the learned counsel at considerable length.
7. The bail granting order which is now being impugned before this Court had been passed as for back as on 21.7.204. The petitioner got his release on the basis of the said order and did not raise even a little finger at the time when the order had passed. If he was not satisfied with the impugned order he could have raised this objections before the learned Trial Court prior to implementation of the said order. Now when the order has been implementation and the petitioner has fully benefited from the same he can not turn around and start finding faults with the said order. The present petition appears to be an afterthought of the petitioner aimed at wriggling out of his liability. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any jurisdictional defect in the order warranting interference by this Court. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed in limine.