' Through this petition, order dated 11.03.2014, passed by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, whereby he confirmed pre-arrest bail of Respondents No, 2 and 3, in case F.I.R No, 88, dated 02.02.2013, registered under Sections, 380, 457, 506-B, P.P.C., at Police Station, Shah Rukn-e-Alam, Multan, has been called in question.
2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, by means of impugned order dated 11.03.2014, proceeded to confirm the pre-arrest bail in favour of Respondents No, 2 and 3 on the basis of a detailed discussion, highlighting not only the unexplained delay of more than one month in lodging the F.I.R, but also the joint venture of the respondents with the complainant to run an Educational Institution and then the disputes, when crept in resulting into differences between the partners of educational business and ended into registration of such criminal case.
3. During investigation, the complainant once furnished an affidavit with the investigating agency exonerating the accused persons from the commission of offences, but subsequently while resiling from her such affidavit, again started prosecution against the accused persons.
4. Respondent No, 3-Shoukat Ali was not originally nominated in F.I.R, which got registered after a delay of more than one month of the alleged occurrence and even in case of belated F.I.R, said Shoukat Ali was subsequently implicated by means of a supplementary statement.
' It seems that the real purpose of the complainant is not the cancellation of bail, but to continue to involve the respondents in protracted litigation and, therefore, on each and every occasion, when the criminal miscellaneous petitions for cancellation of bail were moved; the respondents were forced to engage the counsel and to appear before the Court and then either for non-prosecution or by not arguing the petition, the matter was let to be dismissed and lastly present criminal miscellaneous has been filed with the same prayer and then trap to entangle Respondents No, 2 and 3 in endless litigation, is re-started.
5. On each occasion, there have been three signatories of the petition as counsel for the complainant-petitioner and on every date, either one has arranged a request for adjournment without any explanation about remaining two and the matter is lingered on just in order to tease the respondents.
6. In such series of the petitions, seeking similar request, initially, Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1778- CB of 2014 (was filed, wherein, when the respondents entered their appearance, after engagement of their counsel, the same was not vigilantly prosecuted and it was dismissed for non-prosecution on 10.06.2014.
' Seeking same relief, another Criminal Miscellaneous No, 5665-CB of 2014 was filed and again the respondent had to engage the services of their respective counsel, and when learned Deputy Prosecutor-General appearing for the State, on 01.12.2014, placed information before the Court regarding cancellation of the instant criminal case by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 07.01.2014, the matter was got adjourned by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant in order to ascertain such fact of cancellation of criminal case, but on the adjourned date i.e, 05.12.2014, there had been no representation for the petitioner-complainant and again the petition was dismissed, but this time, merits of the case were also discussed by this Court.
' The present one viz. Criminal Miscellaneous No, 324-CB of 2015 is third in series seeking same relief and in this petition, again the respondents were forced to engage a counsel, and during whole of the year of 2015, the petition was not argued on merits and now only by placing a copy of order dated 03.04.2015, showing that the order of the learned Magistrate passed on 07.01.2014 whereby cancellation report furnished by the police was agreed to by the learned Magistrate, has been challenged and notice has been issued by suspending operation of the order of the Magistrate, the present petition for cancellation of bail is prayed to be adjourned sine-die tilt the decision of Writ Petition No, 4899 of 2015. Even in the present memo. Of petition and also during arguments, nothing has been alleged against respondent as to any alleged misuse of the concession of bail extended in their favour almost two years ago, and the request, which is being made today for adjourning the proceedings of present petition on sine-die basis awaiting the result of the referred writ petition is again an attempt to hanging sword on the heads of the respondents, which cannot be given any sanction by the Court. Such attempts on the part of the complainant must come to an end. She had played enough with the process of law and already a latitude is shown to have been extended to the petitioner, which is not the spirit of law.
7. There is no justification to recall the bail granting order passed in favour of Respondents No, 2 and 3, by a learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan, on 11.03.2014, and finding no force in this petition, the same is dismissed.