TARIQ PARVEZ KHAN, C.J.--- Yousaf Jamal, respondent, is accused for alleged theft in the office of Waheed Ullah, petitioner. Respondent was not charged in the F.I.R. But subsequently, in the statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
2. No incriminating article has been recovered from his possession, except that after about one month of the occurrence co-accused Shahid Jamal has produced Rs .4,000 to the police which was given to him by one Tariq Mehmood.
3. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent has been allowed pre-arrest bail, that too, on mysterious manner for which comments of Additional Sessions Judge were called for which would be dealt with administratively.
4. However, as far prayer for cancellation of bail of the present accused is concerned, on merits respondent has been rightly allowed bail, so much so two of his co-accused against whom cancellation was filed i.e. Tariq Mehmood and Shahid Jamal, was also dismissed by this Court in motion. Therefore, even the rule of consistency requires that this application for cancellation of bail cannot be granted.
5. In view of the above, this application for cancellation of bail stands dismissed in limine, being devoid of force. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.