1. Muhammad Chiragh son of Shaukat Ali resident of Katchi Abadi, near Nishat Cinema, Jaranwala, has moved this application for cancellation of bail of Abdur Rashid and 5 others. Respondents- accused were admitted to ad interim pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge which was later on confirmed by order, dated 12-11-1986.
2. The background of the case is that the petitioner Muhammad Chiragh lodged F.I.R. On 12-8-1986 under section 10 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 against his wife Farhat Bibi, Faqir Hussain alleged paramour of Mst. Farhat Bibi, Khair Din father-in---law, Abdur Rashid and Munir brothers-in-law of Muhammad Chiragh and Mst. Rani, a friend of Mst. Farhat Bibi.
3. When this application came up for hearing it was dismissed in limine qua Mst. Farhat Bibi and Mst.
4. Rani. Notice was issued to the rest of the respondents-accused.
5. Cancellation of bail is sought mainly on the ground that the pre---arrest bail allowed to the respondents-accused by the Additional Sessions Judge was in violation of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Murad Khan v. Fazal-e-Subhan and another PLD 1983 S.C. 82 and Zia- ul-Hassan v. The State PLD 1984 S.C. 192.
6. Learned counsel submitted that pre-arrest bail is not to be given as a routine. The principles governing anticipatory bail are different than the one after arrest.
7. A.A.-G, supported the counsel for the petitioner on the above mentioned legal proposition.
8. However, counsel for the respondents opposed the application. He argued that the investigation has been completed and challan submitted. Respondents-accused never misused the concession of bail. The discretion was rightly exercised by the Additional Sessions Judge in favour of the respondents. Now it is not in the interest of justice to withdraw the concession of bail.
9. Counsel submitted that the alleged occurrence took place in the month of March, 1986. F.I.R. Was lodged in the month of August, 1986. It was further submitted that Assistant District Attorney opined that there was no merit in this case.
10. Deputy District Attorney agreed with him. When the matter came before the Investigating Officer he waited for the opinion of the A.S.P. And, therefore, did not express his own opinion.
11. Learned counsel further submitted that the case-law cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case. He relied on Barkat Masih v. The State 1985 P Cr. L J Lah. 2737.
12. I have considered the arguments of both sides. I agree with the counsel for the petitioner that pre- arrest bail is not to be allowed in routine. Nevertheless, facts of each case have to be considered while considering the question of anticipatory bail. At this stage I would not like to express any opinion whether the case is false or it is of civil nature but It is a fact that civil litigation is going on between the parties. Anyhow, it is, not now in the interest of justice to withdraw the concession of bail specially when the investigation stage is over.
13. I, therefore, dismiss this application.