' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 11th July, 2003 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby concession of bail before arrest has been declined to the petitioners for the following reasons:-- "I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gene through the application which the petitioner had given to the different Investigating Officers as same has been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents. The crux of the matter is that Rs,1,44,000 was given to the respondents by the petitioner for the purchase of paddy crop but on the other hand, the paddy crop which was shown that belonged to other person. One should keep in mind, that considerations for the grant of bail before arrest and after arrest are totally different. Respondents were found guilty by the police.
In this view of the matter, this petition is accepted and order granting bail to the respondents dated 28-4-2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala is hereby recalled."
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case at the best petitioners are involved for the offence under section 420, P.P.C., if at all version of the complaint/prosecution is accepted.
3. We are afraid such questions relating to determination of crime are not to be answered at this stage, lest it will cause prejudice to any of the party. However, it is noteworthy that during the hearing of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,182-L of 2003 in Chamber on 6-8-2003, petitioners through counsel made a statement that if Malik Farmaish Ali, Advocate/Nazim, Union Council No,48 appears before this Court and makes statement about the dispute between the parties, petitioners would be bound by it. It is informed that said Malik Farmaish Ali had declined to appear before the Court to make a statement about the dispute between the parties. Besides it after having gone through the material available on record we are inclined to hold that judgment of the High Court is just and proper, therefore, no interference is called for as no question of public importance is involved in this case.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons petition is dismissed and leave declined.