' SHEIKH HAKIM ALI, J.--- On 15-3-2006, an F.I.R. Was lodged by Malik Muhammad Nawaz, against the present petitioner, for having issued a cheque of Rs,7,50,000, which when presented was bounced from Habib Bank Limited, Trunk Bazar Branch, Sialkot. According to the contents of that report, a case under section 489-F PPC was registered, against the petitioner; who had applied for bail before arrest; which was rejected and petitioner was arrested on 1-2-2007, but the bail after arrest was granted on 31-3-2007, within two months, from the date of his arrest, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sialkot (A.S.J.). Informant Malik Muhammad Nawaz, filed an application for cancellation of post-arrest bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was accepted and the bail of the petitioner was cancelled on 30-6-2008. Aggrieved from the order, a petition for bail before arrest was filed before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, from where he could not get the bail before arrest and his petition was dismissed on 15-9-2008. Hence, this criminal petition for leave to appeal.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence alleged had not fallen within the prohibitory clause, as provided by section 497, Cr.P.C. Bail was cancelled after one year and three months without any cogent reason for cancellation of bail. The learned A.S.J. Could not take a different view from the one, which was earlier taken by his predecessor learned Additional Sessions Judge, who had granted the bail to the petitioner. The allegation that petitioner was a habitual offender was not correct, as in one case, petitioner was acquitted under section 249-A, Cr.P.C., while in another case, he was acquitted on the basis of compromise and in the third case, he was granted bail. The trial has commenced, therefore, the bail should not have been cancelled.
3. Opposing the grant of bail, learned counsel for the State, submits that the bail order passed in favour of the petitioner on 31-3-2007 was an order obtained on the basis of concealment of facts of involvement of the petitioner in three cases of the similar nature, which had proved him a hardened criminal committing same offences with many persons. Further submits that the order of granting bail was passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge with undue haste, and there is no hard and fast rule that in all cases not falling in the prohibitory clause, bail is a must and always be granted to the accused. The learned High Court has taken into consideration all the above raised objections and has passed an order with cogent reasons, by which the petition of the petitioner for grant of pre arrest bail was dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. With regard to the contention that the bail should always be granted in cases not falling within the domain of prohibition clause of proviso to section 497, Cr.P.C. It is observed that it is not a rule of universal application. Each case has to been seen through its own facts and circumstances. The grant of bail, no doubt, is discretion granted to a Court, yet the exercise of it cannot be arbitrary, fanciful or perverse. If an order granting the bail has been obtained after suppressing necessary details of vital importance, the bail can be cancelled by the Court which had granted it. Petitioner who was involved in three previous cases of similar kind was prima facie found to be a habitual offender of issuing cheques and defrauding the people. Entering into a compromise, getting acquittal in one case and bail order having been issued in the third case, cannot be simply ignored at the time of grant of bail, because all these go to the root of the case. The conduct of the petitioner is also relevant at the time of grant of bail, who had remained at large from registration of F.I.R. On 15-3- 2006 till 1-2-2007, the date of his arrest and had not applied for bail before arrest in a period of more than one year nor had surrendered in any Court. Learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, has taken into consideration all these facts, circumstances and arguments of the learned counsel, while maintaining the cancellation order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge on sound reasons. Moreover, the direction has already been issued by the Lahore High Court, Lahore for making efforts to conclude the trial within four months. In these circumstances, when there is a direction issued by the High Court, Lahore for making efforts to conclude the trial within four months. In these circumstances, when there is a direction issued by the High Court for disposal of the case within a specified period, we are not inclined to interfere in the discretion exercised, by the Court below. Resultantly the petition is dismissed and .