FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.---Petitioner Syed Anwar Mehmood Shah, is seeking pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.536, dated 17-7-2006, offences under sections 420, 468 and 471, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Islampura, Lahore for the allegation that the petitioner extorted Rs.37,00,000 (Rupees thirty seven lac only) from the complainant, who lodged F.I.R. No.514 of 2005, but later on, the matter was patched up between the parties through a compromise deed, but the petitioner tampered with the contents of the said compromise deed/agreement, hence, this case.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that; the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant with mala fide intention in connivance with the local police. The petitioner has not tampered with the compromise deed/agreement. The petitioner has filed a civil suit against the complainant, pertaining to the same compromise deed, thus, the matter is purely of civil nature. Further contends that the petitioner has not committed any forgery in the compromise deed. In fact, the complainant wants to cash the cheque, in "question, with mala fide intention and fraudulent means, without performing the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 27-12-2005, therefore, the petitioner deserves the extraordinary relief of prearrest bail.
3. On the contrary, learned counsel for the complainant assisted by learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the bail petition.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it transpires that on the last date of hearing, the petitioner undertook to compensate/ pay of ' the alleged amount to the complainant. Today, the petitioner, present in Court, states that he is not in a position to make the payment to the complainant.
5.
5. The petitioner did not appear before the learned trial Court after obtaining bail before arrest. He was found guilty during the investigation. It is a settled law once for all the one who hoodwinks the order of the Court, is not entitled to any concession. The petitioner has deliberately disappeared from the learned trial Court, which shows his mala fide intention.
6.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the petitioner has failed to comply with the undertaking, given by him, therefore, he does not want to press this bail petition.
7.
7. In these circumstances, this bail petition is dismissed and ad interim prearrest bail, already granted to the petitioner by this Court on 31-7-2005, is hereby recalled.