' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.--- This is application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents in connivance with each other had committed fraud with the petitioner; that actual owner of the plot Tasleem Khan was never produced; that bogus identity card of Tasleem Khan was produced; that bogus persons were produced in order to commit fraud; that Arif Ali, Sana Bhatti and Bootey Shah came together to the complainant and asked him to purchase the plot; that cheque which was issued by Arif Ali was dishonoured; that now Saeed Ahmad has been arrested who posed himself as Tasleem Khan who had died in Saudi Arabia; that Bootey Shah is still at large; that Tahir who in fact had allegedly purchased the plot from Tasleem Khan, he after getting ad interim bail had disappeared; that this is a bail before arrest; that considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different and that no case for bail before arrest is made out.
3. Learned Additional Advocate-General submits that it was Arif All who had identified Tasleem Khan; that he issued a cheque in favour of the complainant Dr. Muhammad Ramzan; that he is the main culprit and introduced Muhammad Saeed as Tasleem Khan who was actual owner of the plot.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Arif Ali submits that Arif Ali had issued a cheque but he had not received any amount; that he had issued the cheque as security; that considerations for grant of bail before arrest and cancellation of bail are totally different. He has relied upon PLD 2002 Lah. 164 and adds that respondent had not misused the concession of bail.
5. Learned counsel for Sana Bhatti submits that there is no allegation whatsoever on the record to connect Sana Bhatti with the alleged offence.
6. Heard. First of all I will take up the case of Sana Bhatti. He for the first time went to Dr. Muhammad Ramzan Azam complainant along with Bootey Shah and Tahir so no role whatsoever is attributed to him in whole of the F.I.R. And in whole of investigation. As far as bail granted A to him is concerned, that should remain intact. This application to his extent is dismissed.
7. As far as Arif Ali respondent is concerned, all the prosecution evidence revolves around him. He is the main culprit in this case. He is the person who went to. Dr. Muhammad Ramzan Azam complainant. He is the person who had issued the cheque. He is the person who stated that Tahir is his maternal-uncle and he had purchased the plot from Tasleem Khan. Tahir has been arrested. He is the person who had issued the cheque of Rs,8,00,000 to the complainant but later on when the complainant went to have the said money, it was told by the Bank Authority that his account has been closed. If Arif Ali was innocent, till today neither he nor Tahir who had got ad interim bail had filed suit against Saeed Ahmad. Arif Ali had not tiled any application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. For registration of the case against Saeed Ahmad. In fact they are conniving with each other in this fraud. This is bail before arrest. Considerations for grant of bail before arrest and after are totally different. Learned Additional Sessions Judge on surmises and conjectures had granted bail before arrest to the respondents. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that no case for bail before arrest is made out to the extent of Arif Ali respondent. This petition to his extent is accepted and bail granting order is hereby recalled.