SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J. - Through this application under Section 497(5), Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks cancellation of post-arrest bail allowed to Muhammad Sadiq and Muhammad Faisal, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively vide orders dated 1.6.2010 and 8.6.2010, passed by learned Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi in case F.I.R. No. 307 of 2010, dated 17.3.2010 u/Ss. 365, 342, P.P.C. Registered at P.S. R.A. Bazar, Rawalpindi.
2. The petitioner, in the 1st instance, had moved the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi by way of filing a cancellation of bail application against the respondent-accused which was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2010, hence, the instant petition.
3. Precisely, the prosecution case as stated by Muhammad Humayun Khan complainant-petitioner is that he and his son Imran Khan had been illegally taken into custody by six persons, four clad in police uniform and two in plain clothes, at 5.40 p.m. On 15.4.2010 who took them to Police Post Race Course, Rawalpindi where they conducted interrogation and later on confined them in the police lockup; on the next day. The police officials Masood, ASI and Muqarab Jan, Constable presented them before the learned Magistrate for obtaining their physical remand but they failed to do so, as the learned Magistrate refused to accede to their request, finding the circumstances of the case dubious; thereafter the delinquent police officials drove both the abductees to an unknown place and confined them in a room where M/s. Sheraz, Faisal (respondent No. 2), Banaras, Ayyaz Mehmood, Nisar, Sadiq (respondent No. 1) and Tariq accused tortured and criminally intimidated them by extending threats of dire, .Consequences and that of murder; the accused besides committing violence, did not provide them any food and finally abandoned them near Koh-e-Noor Mills and fled away.
4. The respondent-accused were arrested by the police and sent to judicial lock-up. The learned Magistrate Section 30, Rawalpindi admitted them to post-arrest bail vide orders as mentioned hereinbefore and set them at liberty. The cancellation of bail petition filed by the complainant, as noted above was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi on 15,11.2010.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents-accused had repeated the offence after having been admitted to bail and a criminal case F.I.R. No. 552 of 2010 was registered against them on 8.7.2010 for offence 'under Section 364, PPC at Police Station, R.A. Bazar, Rawalpindi on the statement of the petitioner, for having abducted Muhammad Zeshan Khan, the son of the complainant; the accused having repeated the offence, had clearly misused the concession of bail so they could no more enjoy the afore-said concession; the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi is patently illegal as the fact qua repetition of the offence by the accused was not attended to by the learned subordinate Court and the cancellation of bail petition was dismissed arbitrarily and capriciously; the respondent-accused had abducted the complainant alongwith his son Muhammad Imran Khan, and after their release on bail they abducted the other son of the complainant whose whereabouts were still unknown; the police had been siding with the accused party and they did not record the statements of the witnesses produced by the complainant during investigation; the petitioner-complainant had been on the receiving end, firstly at the hands of their adversaries and secondly at the hands of the police who dishonestly damaged the prosecution case; sufficient incriminating evidence is available against the accused and no circumstance exists to believe that the case of the respondent-accused was open to further inquiry within the meanings of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.; lastly submits that it is a fit case wherein the bail facility unduly extended to the accused may be recalled. Relies upon Raja Zahoor Ahmad Vs. The State and 2 others (2005 P.Cr.LJ. 1713).
6. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent-accused submits that the complainant had cooked up a false story against the accused to cause them harassment, intimidation and humiliation; the story Contained in the F.I.R. Is self-discrepant and preposterous which has no relevance with the truth; the respondent- accused had been admitted to post-arrest bail strictly in line with the rules governing grant of bail, and their case was open to further inquiry within the meaning of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C.; the respondent-accused after having been admitted to bail neither misused the same nor tampered with the prosecution evidence in any manner; the complainant burnt with passion of getting the accused arrested in a false case, for tainted purposes so the instant petition may be dismissed.
7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has endorsed the contentions of learned counsel, for the respondent-accused and maintains that the impugned order did not suffer from any infirmity or impairment so the instant petition being devoid of merits may not be entertained.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
9. It has not been alleged against the respondents-accused that they in any manner, had trespassed into the house of the complainant or had abducted Imran Khan and Muhammad Humayun Khan complainant. The names of the respondent-accused though find mention in the F.I.R. Still it is not clear as to what offence they had actually committed. No evidence could be produced before the police against the accused by the complainant during the course of investigation nor any medical evidence exists to prove the charge of commission of violence upon the alleged abductees. The bail granting Court has rightly observed that it was the police party from Peshawar who had taken both the alleged abductees in custody and had produced them before the learned Magistrate for seeking their physical remand but having failed in this regard, they opted to drop them near Koh-e- Noor Mills. The respondent-accused were not directly responsible in respect of the alleged abduction of the abductees and their names appeared in the F.I.R. At a later stage with the allegation that they allegedly committed torture upon the victims and intimidated them with threats of murder etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon the' argument that the respondent-accused had repeatedly committed . The same offence against the complainant party as they were booked in case F.I.R. No. 552 of 2010 supra so their bail facility should be recalled. This argument, I am afraid, is devoid of any force as the prearrest bail application of the respondent-accused (Crl. Misc. No. 1557-B/2010) was confirmed by this Court' vide order dated 6,10.2010 with the following observations:-- "On the last date of hearing the Investigating Officer sought adjournment as he wanted to get verified some data collected about the mobile phone calls to clarify if those calls were ever made by the petitioner to the complainant etc. Today he has entered appearance and stated before the Court that no any call according to his investigation was ever made by the petitioner. Except mere allegations at present no evidence could be collected by the Investigating Officer to connect the petitioner with the commission of the offence. No doubt pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy but it is available on the statute book to protect innocent persons to be involved in the false case as well as uncalled for allegations etc. As at present except mere allegations no connecting evidence is available on record, therefore, petitioner's pre-arrest bail already granted to him vide order dated 8.9.2010 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with one surety in the tike amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court within one week otherwise this bail petition shall be deemed as dismissed."
10. The subsequent F.I.R. (552 of 2010) got lodged by the complainant appears to be an attempt on the part of the complainant to get the respondent-accused arrested at any cost, so, the malice and ulterior motives of the complainant can be easily perceived floating across the face of the mentioned F.I.R. The considerations for cancellation of bail are altogether different from the one meant for the grant/refusal of bail under Section 497, Cr.P.C. Once an accused .Has been admitted to bail on merits-by a competent Court of jurisdiction, exceptional circumstances shall be required to interfere with the bail- granting order, which do not exist in the instant case. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the instant application which, being destitute of merits, stands dismissed.