' M. BILAL KHAN, J.- Muhammad Aslam son of Jalal Din, who is complainant in case F.I.R. No,835 of 2005 dated 20-10-2005, registered with Police Station F.I.A./PC, Lahore, for offences under sections 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 seeks cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No,l, namely, Zahid Hussain Butt son of Muhammad Ashraf Butt, by this Court vide order dated 23-1- 2006 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,92-B of 2006.
2. The facts of the case have been noted down in considerable detail in the order of this Court dated 23-1-2006 passed in the aforesaid petition filed by Zahid Hussain Butt, respondent No,l, therefore, the same need not be reiterated.
3. Respondent No,l applied for his post-arrest bail which had been turned down by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore vide his order dated 1-1-2006. Thereafter he approached this Court and had been granted post-arrest bail vide order dated 23-1-2006. It is the said order, which has been impugned by the petitioner/ complainant and he has sought cancellation of bail allowed to respondent No,l.
4. It has been argued by Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Qureshi, the learned counsel for respondent No,l that the petitioner has no locus standi to initiate the present application; that both the affectees namely Arshad Mehmood son of Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ahmad Sahil son of Muhammad Afzal Butt had appeared before this Court and had submitted that their grievance stood redressed and respondent No, 1 did not owe anything to them; that the cheque in question had never been issued by respondent No,l, it was issued by one Waseem Butt who is not the real son of the petitioner but in fact was the son of Mst. Farha Diba who was a divorcee and the petitioner had married her in the year 1991; that the allegation in the F.I.R, was that the affectees had paid Rs,80,000 and Rs,75,000 respectively to Rizwan, totalling an amount of Rs, 1,55,000 whereas now they are claiming an amount of Rs,2,54,000; that there was no occasion for someone to issue a cheque of Rs,2,54,000 when actual amount claimed by the affectees was Rs, 1,55,000 and no complaint for the said act had ever been made. The learned counsel relied on Muzaffar Iqbal v.
Muhammad Imran Aziz and others (2004 SGMR 231) to contend that there must be strong and exceptional circumstance to recall the bail granting order. He also relied on Qasim Khan v. Sharafat Khan and another (2003 YLR 2910) (Peshawar) wherein it was held that bail can be recalled where the person on bail repeats the offence, hampers the investigation, makes some efforts to tamper with the evidence, commits some acts of violence against the police or prosecution witnesses or manages to flee from the country or beyond the control of-the sureties.
5. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, the learned Standing Counsel for Govemment of Pakistan submitted that Muhammad Aslam petitioner is the father of Arshad Mehmood affectee; his statement under section 161, Cr.P.C, had been recorded during the course of investigation on 22-10- 2005 wherein he had fully supported the prosecution story; he had witnessed occasional payments being paid to respondent No,l; that Muhammad Ahmad Sahil and Sh. Arshad Mehmood had fully supported their version in their statements under section 161, Cr.P.C.; that the affectees had been coaxed into making favourable statements and affidavits on the pretence that they would be paid their amount for which a cheque had later on been issued by Waseem Butt the son of respondent No,l; that it is admitted position that the bank account is in the name of Waseem Butt son of Zahid Hussain Butt (respondent No,l) and that the plea that Waseem Butt is not the real son of Zahid Hussain Butt is a figment of respondent No,1's imagination which had never been taken before; that the claim of respondent No,l that he had received the payment of Rs,2,54,000 from the affectees on account of some business transaction relating to wheat and rice is a contrivance pure and simple; that by forcing the affectees into filing affidavits and thereafter backing out from his promise by wrenching the cheque .Respondent No,l has committed a serious offence and is not entitled to .
Any discretionary relief by the Court. He finally submitted that the precedents cited by respondent No,l are not applicable in the instant case.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record brought by Muhammad Sarwar S.-I. P.S. F.I.A./PC, Lahore.
7, , During the course of hearing of this petition on 30-11-2006 respondent No, 1 had claimed that he had no nexus with Cheque No, 0410-21814-010, drawn on PICIC Commercial Bank Ltd. Gulshan-e- Ravi Branch, Lahore; on this I had asked the learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan to find out the details of the account and the name of the account holder. He later on informed the Court that the account belonged to respondent No,1's son Waseem Butt. It is thus clear that disavowal of his own son by respondent No,l is clearly an afterthought. Likewise respondent No, 1 has not been able to explain in what connection he had received Rs,2,54,000 from the affectees. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Chhachhar, the learned Standing Counsel for Government of Pakistan had offered that if any valid receipt or document is shown by respondent No,l in support of his claim that this amount had been received for some business transaction relating to wheat or rice he would not oppose this petition for cancellation of bail. However, the petitioner could not produce anything to the said effect. It is, therefore, manifeste that respondent No,l had manoeuvred the affidavits and the statements of the affectees on the basis of which bail had been allowed to him. He was thereby able to successfully steal a march on the Court itself. Such a conduct on the part of a person who seeks discretionary relief from a Court of law is most reprehensible. He cannot be allowed to benefit from an order, which he had been able to procure by deceitful means. The precedents relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 do not advance his client's case; inasmuch as the case does disclose strong and exceptional circumstances to recall the bail granting order.
8. Resultantly this petition is allowed, and the order dated 23-1-2006 whereby respondent No,l had been allowed post arrest bail is hereby recalled. He shall be remitted to custody.