' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.--- These petitions have been filed for pre-arrest bail. Ad interim relief was extended to him on 10-10-2007.
2. It appears that bonds, in pursuance of said order, submitted by him were not accepted by the Registrar and same had been returned.
3. Learned counsel stated that petitioner could not appear before the Special Judge, Anti- Corruption; therefore, the High Court instead of discussing the merits of the case ought to have remanded the case to the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for re-considering his plea for bail before arrest.
4. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the State pointed out that petitioner remained absent for one or the other reason and availed benefit of bail before arrest extended to him by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption for a period of seven months and the High Court on having considered this fact as well as the merits of the case declined to grant bail to him.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record so made available. It is not necessary for us to go into the details in respect of appearance of the petitioner or his counsel before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, for the reasons that High Court had also considered this case on merits as well and concluded on the basis of material as follows:--- ' "I have further concluded that the petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. With serious allegations. Extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail cannot be granted to such-like offenders. Learned counsel has failed to convince me that F.I.R. Against him has been lodged due to the mala fides of the police or the complainant which is pre-conditions for grant of pre-arrest bail as laid down by the apex Court in the cases of Murad Khan v. Fazal Subhan PLD 1983 SC 82 and Zia-ul-Hassan v.
The State PLD 1984 SC 192. Therefore, this petition is dismissed. A copy of this order be immediately dispatched to the concerned police station."
' Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that there is mala fide on the part of the complainant therefore, the High Court, ought to have not dismissed the case but we are not inclined to entertain his arguments in view of the reason cited by the High Court which seems to be cogent and strong.
Therefore, no interference is called for in the discretionary powers, exercised by the High Court.
6. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, petitions are dismissed and the order of the grant of bail is re- called.