' SYED MAHMOOD ALAM RIZVI, J.---Granted, as Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate has contended that respondent No,2, Syed Maqbool Hassan, was granted pre-arrest bail. As the earlier pre-arrest bail application of the respondent No,2 was dismissed vide order dated 17-1-2006 being bail application No,771 of 2006 by the learned IVth Additional District Judge (East) Karachi, and after lapse of one and half year respondent No,2 has filed a fresh bail application bearing No,289/08 and obtained pre-arrest bail through the impugned order dated 3-4-2008 and has apprehended that the learned Sessions Judge is going to confirm the bail application of the respondent No,2.
2. Granted subject to all just exceptions.
3. It is, inter alia, contended that this a case of cheating and fraud committed by the respondent No,2 against the applicant and had obtained Rs,30,00,000 regarding the purchase of the plots as a result the applicant has lodged F.I.R. No,681/06 under sections 420/406, P.P,C. At Ferozabad Police Station on 8-9-2006 just after the delay of four years. As a result the respondent No,2 had filed his pre-arrest bail but the same was dismissed. Thereafter the respondent No,2 again filed a Cr. Bail Appl. No,289 of 2008, interim pre-arrest bail has been granted vide order dated 3-4-2008. He further contended that the order is illegal and liable to set aside, as the respondent No,2 firstly had concealed the order passed on first bail application and secondly he was an absconder.
' Mr. Mirza, appearing on behalf of the State has opposed this application and contended that only interim pre arrest bail has been granted to respondent No,2 and it is filed for final adjudication and hence it is premature application. Heard both the sides and perused the record.
' Admittedly, as per order dated 17-11-2006 annexed with this application at page 81 Mr. Abdul Razzaque, the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Karachi East was pleased to dismiss the bail application on merits. The first bail application was filed by Mr. SMA. Mehmood, Advocate and the same learned counsel has filed the second bail application, hence the learned counsel should have made the reference of earlier order, though filing second pre-arrest bail is not barred. The impugned order is interim in nature and the bail has not been confirmed as yet and the above facts may be agitated before the learned Sessions Judge by the complainant/applicant.
At this stage, Mr. Qureshi, has further contended that he tried to argue before the learned Sessions Judge but his request was turned down and has placed the judgment of Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Fazle Haq v. The State, reported in PLD 1989 Peshawar 227, whereof the private counsel has given right to address the Court. Even the Court used to appoint any lawyer to address the Court as Amicus Curae.
In such circumstances, Mr. Qureshi, contended that he will not press this application if the direction may be given to the learned Sessions Court that he may allow him to address the Court on behalf of the complainant. The contention of Mr. Qureshi is reasonable, hence the learned Sessions Judge, is directed to hear Mr. Qureshi, on behalf of the complainant and decide the pending bail application of the respondent No, 2 within 30 days after the receipt of this order. In the above terms this Cr. Misc. Application is disposed of along with the listed applications.