1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-The two petitioners, along with three others, are facing prosecution under sections 148, 382, 452 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 149, thereof on the basis of a First Information Report registered against them on the 28th of June, 1980, at Police Station Kotwali, Faisalabad, at the instance of Mr. Habibur Rehman, Advocate of Faisalabad. He alleged that the petitioners and their companions were annoyed with him for the reason that in his capacity as Legal Adviser to the Local Branch of the National Bank of Pakistan he had been pursuing litigation against Muhammad Shafiq's father Muhammad Suleman, and accordingly, the accused persons raided his office on the 28th of June, 1980, and caused injuries to his clerks Muhammad Anwar and Mukhtar Ahmad; and sub--sequently they also insulted and manhandled the Advocate himself at or near the Kotwali, Police Station. He reported the matter after obtaining the result of the medico-legal examination of the injuries of Mukhtar Ahmad, which included a fracture of one of the fingers of his left hand. It was further alleged that the Rolex watch of Mukhtar Ahmad was also forcibly taken away by the accused.
2. The petitioners applied for bail before arrest in the High Court, which granted interim bail by its order dated the 6th of July, 1980, up to the 21st of July, 1980, and directed that the petitioners should apply to the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. In accordance with this direction, the petitioners moved an application in the Sessions Court, and although interim bail was again allowed to them on the 17th of July, 1980, yet their application was eventually dismissed on the 21st of July, 1980, for non-prosecution.
3. Thereafter the petitioners once again came to the High Court and obtained interim bail before arrest on the 28th of July, 1980, but their application was finally dismissed on the 26th of October, 1980. They seek leave to appeal against this order.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the Darned Judge in the High Court has completely ignored the fact that the prosecution commenced by the complainant suffered from males fides as the real intention of the complainant and the official of the National Bank was to put pressure upon petitioner Muhammad Shafiq's father Muhammad Suleman to restore the tenancy of the Bank in respect of a house owned by Suleman.
5. In support of this submission Mr. Batalvi has drawn our attention to a document purporting to be in the nature of a compromise signed by Mr. Fakhre Abbas, local Manager of the Bank, on the 28th of June, 1980, according to which the possession of the house was to be restored to the Bank. The learned counsel submits that in this background, it would appear that there was ample justification for the grant of pre-arrest bail, particularly when it also became manifest that the injuries found on Mukhtar Ahmad could be self-suffered or self-inflicted, as the learned Magistrate had ordered on the 13th of July, 1980, that Mukhtar Ahmad should submit to fresh medical examination, but he had not done so in spite of the lapse of nearly four months since that order was made.
6. After perusing the F. I. R. Registered against the petitioners by Ch. Habibur Rehman, Advocate of Faisalabad, as well as the result of the medico-legal examination of the injuries of Mukhtar Ahmad, as noticed by the doctor on the 28th of June, 1980, we are of the view that the learned Judge in the High Court has exercised his discretion properly in refusing to confirm the interim bail earlier granted by the High Court on the 28th of July, 1980. Whatever the background of litigation between the National Bank of Pakistan and the father of petitioner Muhammad Shafiq, it cannot be accepted at this stage that Ch. Habibur Rehman, Advocate, bad fabricated) the whole incident simply for the reason that he was the local Advise. Of the Bank and was pursuing it litigation against Muhammad Suleman It is difficult to accept further that the doctor, who examined Mukhtar Ahmad on the 28th of June, 1980, had given a false certificate regarding the injuries' found on his person. It may be true that the injured man Mukhtar Ahmad had not submitted to a fresh medical examination as directed by the learned Magistrate on the 30th of July, 1980, but this failure on his part cannot at this stage be taken to negative the result of the earlier examination. Its other words, we are of the view that it was not possible for the High Court to declare at this stage that the complaint made against the petitioners was completely false and without foundation, and that no such incident had taken place.
7. In the circumstances, the High Court was right in saying that the law should take its normal course, and there was no justification for allowing pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.
8. The present petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.