' MUHAMMAD ANWAARUL HAQ, J.---Through this petition, Imran Bashir petitioner-complainant seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail of respondent No, 1-Rai Bilal Haider, confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Lahore vide order dated 14.11.2015, in case F.I.R. No, 110, dated 05.03.2015, registered at Police Station/Manga Mandi, Lahore, in respect of an offence under Section 489-F, P.P.C.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. 1 have carefully examined the order dated 14.11.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, who while confirming ad-interim pre-arrest bail of respondent Na.1, has observed as under:- "The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. He admitted the issuance of cheque and contended that the complainant, who is blind, himself did not fulfill his part of agreement and the parties agreed to rescind the agreement. The petitioner has also instituted a civil suit to this effect. The complainant, who was present in the court on last date of hearing, also admitted this fact and he made request that petitioner may be asked to pay his amount. The petitioner is ready to pay the amount but the only obstacle is that he demands return of original sale deed (agreement to sell) which is still lying with the complainant. Here the complainant asserts that he does not possess any such agreement. He showed his willingness to make statement regarding cancellation of any agreement to sell before the Civil Court.
' It cannot be expected from a practicing Advocate that he would abscond from the lawful custody. Moreover, if bail application is refused and petitioner is sent behind the bar, it will serve no useful purpose because petitioner will likely to be released on after arrest bail. All the above narrated facts make it a case for further inquiry..
' I have noticed that pre-arrest bail of the respondent has been confirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Lahore without pointing out any mala fide of the complainant or of the police, that is a sine qua non for the relief of pre-arrest bail and the observation of learned Sessions Judge that the complainant is, not willing to return the original agreement to sell, is not based upon actual facts because the complainant was admittedly not present before the Court on the relevant date.
4. Notice was issued to respondent No,1-Rai Bilal Haider on 27.11.2015 and in pursuance thereof, respondent along with his learned counsel Ch. Mehmood Alam, Advocate turned up before this Court on 25.01.2016 and the following order was passed: - "Respondent No,1 Rai Bilal Haider, present before the Court, undertakes that on the next date of hearing he shall return whole disputed amount of Rs, 8,55,000/- to the petitioner; further states that he had already signed some documents which are in possession of the petitioner and he may be directed to return the same. The petitioner is directed to bring all the said documents along with him on the next date of hearing and in case no such document is available with the petitioner he shall submit his affidavit in this regard and shall also undertake that such document shall not be binding upon respondent No,1 if the same is found in future. Adjourned for 12.02.2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to ensure presence of Azam Ali Shaukat before this Court on the date fixed."
' On 12.02.2016, 02.03.2016 and 14.03.2016, respondent Rai Bilal Haider did not appear, however, on the request of his learned counsel case was adjourned thrice and then bailable warrant of arrest of the respondent was issued. Resultantly, respondent made his appearance on 18.03.2016 and the case was adjourned with the following observations:- "Petitioner Imran Bashir, present before the Court, states that respondent No,1 Rai Bilal Haider has not paid him any amount in pursuance of his undertaking given before this Court on 25.01.2016.
When confronted, respondent No,1 requests for a short adjournment on the ground that his learned counsel is not available today. Adjourned for 21.03.2016."
' On 21.03.2016 in the presence of respondent and his learned counsel, following order was passed: - "Respondent No,1 present in Court still requests for one day time to do the needful. In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for tomorrow i.e, 22.03.2016."
5. Today, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has come 'up with entirely a strange stance contending that respondent has already paid an amount of Rs,8,55,000/- to Azam Ali Shaukat vide Receipt dated 26.12.2015 but at the moment he is not in possession of any such receipt. Further contends that challan in the case has already been submitted before the court and respondent is regularly appearing before the learned trial court. Learned counsel simply requests for decision of this petition on merits. This stubborn attitude of the respondent reflects that he has no regard for the commitments made before the learned Sessions Judge and then before this Court time and again. Respondent, who is an advocate, was given reasonable opportunity to fulfill his commitment made before this Court to pay his outstanding amount to the complainant, a blind man pursuing this petition regularly, despite his disability but the respondent since 27.11.2015 is playing hide and seek on one pretext or the other even after tendering the disputed agreement before the Court as Mark-A.
' In the backdrop mentioned above, I am of the considered view that respondent No,1-Rai Bilal Haider was allowed pre-arrest bail against the settled principles by the Honible Supreme Court of Pakistan and order passed in his favour is an erroneous order not sustainable in the eyes of the law. Therefore, by allowing this petition, bail confirming order dated 14-11-2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Lahore in favour of respondent No,1-Rai Bilal Haider, is hereby recalled.
6. It is, however, clarified that observations made herein are just tentative in nature and strictly confined to the disposal of this petition.