ORDER SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---Muhammad Shoaib Abbasi, the respondent-accused was allowed bail before arrest vide order dated 26-1-2010, passed by this Court mainly on the ground that he had pledged to reimburse an amount of Rs. 4,50,000 to the complainant-petitioner in 18 installments of Rs. 25,000 each, per month and that the first installment was bound to be paid by him by February 10, 2010 while the last installment was payable by him till July 10, 2011. It was however, observed by this Court in the ing order that the complainant shall be at liberty to ask for cancellation of bail of the accused, if he would default in the payment of the installments, as mentioned above.
2. The respondent-accused adhered to the said charter of payment of installments to the complainant till May, 2010 and disrupted this sequence thereafter. Hence the instant cancellation of bail petition.
3. The respondent-accused appeared before this Court through his counsel on 24-5-2010 and submitted that he would pay the installment of Rs. 25,000 for the month of April, 2010 to the complainant on that very day and the installment for the month of May, 2010 would be paid by him within a fortnight and reiterated his version that the remaining installments would be defrayed by him regularly. The proceedings were adjourned to 8-6-2010 and on the said date, the respondent- accused made payment of another installment of Rs. 25,000 to the complainant for the month of May, 2010 and gave word that the installment for the month of June, 2010 shall be paid by him within a few days.
4. The respondent-accused did not turn up on 14-9-2010 and also failed to appear on 29-9-2010, so in order to procure his presence, bailable warrants of arrest were issued against him on 29-9-2010 for the next date of hearing and the proceedings were adjourned to 7-10-2010. The respondent- accused did not appear again on .7-10-2010, so his non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued to procure his presence. In the meanwhile, learned District and Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi submitted a report to the effect that father of the respondent-accused had met the Process Server and informed him that he had ostracized his son, Muhammad Shoaib Abasi, being disobedient and had also disinherited him, so he knew not his whereabouts.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi vide memo. No. 4937/WS.I, dated 19-10-2010 has submitted another report qua non execution of non-bailable warrants of arrest of the respondent- accused with the identical remarks that the father of the respondent-accused had ostracized his son, Muhammad Shoaib Abbasi and that he had wilfully concealed himself at some un-known place to avoid his arrest. As there is no probability of appearance of the respondent-accused before this Court who has maliciously gone into hideout to evade his liability so no other option is left but to decide the instant petition in the prevalent circumstances.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-accused had categorically submitted before this Court to discharge his liability of making payment of Rs. 4,50,000 to the complainant in 18 equal installments of Rs. 25,000 apiece, per month and thereby succeeded in fetching extraordinary relief of pre arrest bail on 26-1-2010 but he has failed to keep his promise so as per concluding observation of this Court, the pre-arrest bail allowed to the respondent-accused may be re-called.
7. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has also endorsed the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and adds that the accused by showing scant respect to the order of this Court has rendered himself for a penal action against him.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor- General and find that the petitioner who is an accused of case F.I.R. No. 619 of 2009 dated 3-12- 2009 under section 489-F, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Banni owed Rs. 4,50,000 to the complainant-petitioner and he issued two cheques to the complainant for the equal amount which were bounced by the bank for sufficiency of funds. After dismissal of his pre-arrest bail application by the Sessions Court concerned, he applied for the same relief through Criminal Miscellaneous No. 23-B of 2010 which was allowed by this Court on 26-1-2010 on the assurance of the petitioner that he would pay the whole amount to the complainant in 18 equal installments of Rs.25,000 each and pay one installment per month to the complainant by 10th day of every month till July, 2011. He hesitantly delivered four installments to the complainant, as mentioned hereinbefore but defaulted thereafter and slipped away, not to be traced again, notwithstanding the issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against him. By his conduct, the respondent- accused has given a clear message that he had decided to chew his words and was not prepared to follow the above-noted schedule of payment. He has clearly misused the concession of pre- arrest bail which was allowed to him by this Court on 26-1-2010 under certain conditions, as mentioned above. Therefore, the ing order dated 26-1-2010 is recalled, the respondent-accused shall be arrested by the police and remitted to judicial custody.
9. Separate proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C. Be conducted by the learned trial Court, against the surety of the respondent-accused. The petition stands accepted.