ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.--This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the order, dated 18-3-1985 and 20-3-1985 passed by the learned Company Judge admitting the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs.25 lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Jud1.) of this Court and dismissing the appellant's application for reducing the amount of bail.
2. Appellant who was a Managing Director of Yasrib International Finance Ltd. Moved an application (Civil Original No. 113 of 1979) for its winding up. On an application made by the Liquidator, learned Company Judge (Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Lone) directed the appellant to furnish adequate security in the sum of Rs.15 lacs, within one week to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Jud1.) of this Court to the effect that in case he is posted with the liability the amount in question shall be paid by the surety. The Inspector F.I.A. Shall arrange to collect passport from the respondent today, which shall be deposited with the Deputy Registrar (Jud1.) and kept in safe custody till further orders". He was further directed to appear in person on 14-12-1983. Appellant handed over the passport to the F.I.A. But he failed to furnish requisite security and moved an application Civil Miscellaneous No. 205/L of 1983, on 19-12-1983 for review of the order regarding the security which application was dismissed in default on 6-3-1985, by the learned Company Judge (Mr. Justice Muhammad Ilyas) who issued non-bailable warrants in execution of which the appellant was arrested. He then filed an application for bail which was accepted by the learned Company Judge by order, dated 18-3-1985 and the appellant was admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.25 lacs with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Jud1.) of this Court.
Appellant filed an application for the reduction of amount of bail which was dismissed by the learned Company Judge on 20-3-1985:
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the Official Liquidator and the counsel for the State Bank of Pakistan. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that under section 197 of the Companies Act, appellant could be arrested if there existed probable cause for believing that he was about to quit Pakistan or otherwise to abscond or to remove or conceal any of his property. According to the learned counsel, appellant having already surrendered his International Passport, there could be no apprehension of his leaving Pakistan. He has further submitted that there is no material available on the record to give cause for believing that the appellant was likely to abscond or to remove or conceal any of his property. On these premises, learned counsel has argued that there was no basis for issuing non-bailable warrants for the appellant's arrest. It is, no doubt, true that the appellant had surrendered his International Passport obviating the possibility of his quitting the country but the learned Company Judge had sufficient material before him to justify the issuance of non-bailable warrants against the appellant: As observed in the impugned order, dated 18-3-1985 appellant was required to be present in Court on 6-3-1985 as he had to be confronted with one Mr. Shahid Malik but he failed to enter appearance on that date. D.S.P., F.I.A. Who was deputed to serve notice on the appellant informed the learned Company Judge that the appellant had left his residence. For these reasons, non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellant.
4. Apart from section 197 of the Companies Act, appellant's arrest can also be sustained with reference to the provisions of section 94, C.P.C. Which provides that in order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the Court may issue a warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the Court to show cause why he should not give security for his appearance, and if he fails to comply with an order for security, commit him to the civil prison. As noticed above, the appellant was required to furnish adequate security in the sum of Rs.15 lacs but he failed to comply with that order and absented himself on 6-3-1985. Learned Company Judge, proceedings before whom were admittedly regulated by the provisions of C.P.C. Was, therefore; possessed of jurisdiction to issue warrants of the appellant's arrest to cause his appearance before him. Viewed from this angle, the impugned order of the learned Company Judge issuing warrants for the arrest of the appellant was perfectly lawful.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the amount of bail is highly excessive and if this amount is not reduced, release of the appellant will not be possible because he cannot furnish the bonds for very high amount fixed by the learned Company Judge. We see no substance in this submission. Apart from the fact that fixing of the amount of bail was purely in the discretion of the learned Company. Judge we find that the amount fixed is justified on the facts and circumstances of the case. It .Is on record that the liability of the appellant which the Official Liquidator has worked out on the basis of the record of only' 16 out of more than 100 branches of the Finance Company under liquidation far exceeds 25 lacs. In the circumstances, there is nothing wrong with the amount of bail fixed by the learned Company Judge.