' By this common order I propose to dispose of the above two applications made by applicant Dr. Abdul Sattar under subsection (5) of section 497, read with section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
2. On 15-8-1989, Dr. Abdul Sattar made an application to D.S.P. Nazimabad, Karachi, against his brother Abdul Rahim, respondent No,1, niece Miss Asma, respondent No,2 and nephew Abdul Salam Tariq, respondent No,3, alleging therein that they had misappropriated his prize bonds, documents and golden ornaments valued at Rs,1,75,000 kept by them as Amanat. On 9-9-1989, at 5-30 p.m., the report in respect of this crime bearing Crime No, 326 of 1989, Nazimabad Police Station, under section 406, P.P.C. Was registered. On the same day at 5-45 p.m., another report lodged by Dr. Abdul Sattar, bearing Crime No,327 of 1989, Nazimabad Police Station, under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement Of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, against his brother Abdul Rahim, respondent No,1 and nephew Abdul Salam Tariq, respondent No,2 was registered.
Apprehending their arrest, the above respondents surrendered before learned Sessions Judge (Central) Karachi, for pre-arrest bail, who allowed their prayer vide order dated 20-9-1989. Both these orders are the subject-matter of the present applications made for cancellation of bail granted to respondents in the above crimes.
3. I have heard Mr. M.A. Kazi, learned counsel for applicant, Mr.Azad Bin Haider, learned counsel for private respondents and Mr. Shaukat H. Zubedi, learned AA.-G. For State. The learned A.A.-G. Has supported the applications made for cancellation of bail.
4. The parties are closely related to each other. The record also shows that the relations between the parties were not cordial. Applicant Dr. Abdul Sattar who had appeared as witness for appellant in a case reported as A. Ghani Danwala v. Ahmed Ibrahim Ameen PLD 1982 Kar. 935 was found to be a man of evil repute. I cannot do better than quote the words of my brother Nasir Aslam Zahid, J.
Expressed in the above-reported case, which are as follows.
" On the other hand, the appellant in his evidence stated that the house in Gulshan-e-Iqbal had been purchased by the respondent and then relied upon the evidence of Dr.Abdul Sattar, brother of MstAmina Bai. Both these witnesses stated that they had not seen the sale-deed being executed or that the transaction of sale had taken place in their presence. Further, as far as Dr.Abdul Sattar is concerned, in his cross-examination it has become clear that he was on inimical terms with Mst.Amina Bai and that there were previous disputes between Dr.Abdul Sattar and his sister Mst.
Amina Bai and a letter had also been produced in cross-examination which was written by DrAbdul Sattar to Farooq Amin, son of the respondent, in which he admitted that he was a drunkard and leading a miserable life in England."
5. The offences under section 406, P.P.C. (Crime No,326 of 1989) Nazimabad Police Station and section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 (Crime No,327 of 1989) Nazimabad Police Station, do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. Mr. M.A. Kazi, learned counsel for applicant has, however, contended with force that both the orders by which private respondents were granted anticipatory bail are against the spirit of the settled principles of law. He has in particular invited my attention to the case reported as Murad Khan v. Fazal-eSubhan and another PLD 1983 SC 82, wherein certain guidelines were laid down on the basis of which the order for anticipatory bail could be passed. A careful examination of this authority, howerver, shows that arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassme nt at the hands of motivated persons was considered to be a ground for the grant of such relief. This view was further elaborated in the case of Mceran Bux v. The State and another, reported in PLD 1989 SC 347.
7. There are no pre-conditions for the grant of anticipatory bail except those which are laid down by the superior Courts from time to time. It needs hardly to be pointed out that section 498, Cr.P.C.
Was provided to meet those cases where for political or other extraneous consideration false and trumped up charges may be brought against innocent persons with a view to harass and humiliate them. Since the private respondents have raised this plea in specific terms and the learned Sessions Judge had exercised his discretion in accordance with the well-recognized principles for grant of pre-arrest bail, 1 see no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of applicant.
8. There is abnormal delay in taking recourse to law. The application made to D.S.P. Nazimabad, on the basis of which Crime No,326 of 1989, Nazimabad Police Station, under section 406, P.P.C., was registered, was made after about two months of the alleged incident. Likewise the report of theft in Crime No,327 of 1989, Nazimabad Police Station, under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was lodged after 24 hours of the incident, without any plausible explanation. The registration of both these cases one after the other again throws doubt about the manner in which the alleged incidents took place. As observed in Nazar Muhammad v.
The State and another reported in 1977 P Cr. L J 277, the provisions regarding cancellation of bail under subsection (5) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Are not available to private parties to satisfy their grudges or to use as a means of wreaking their vengeance. I9. The concession of bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be recalled in the absence of cogent reasons. The case of Mehr Ghulam Nabi v. Muhammad Shafiq and another, reported in 1979 SCMR 479, is relevant in this behalf. The observations made by Muhammad Munir Khan, J. In the case of Haji Ghani v. The State, reported in PLD 1988 Lah. 507, are also relevant. I may usefully borrow the following extract from his order.
"The basic idea and the object of the law of pre-arrest bail is to protect the liberty and honour of respectable citizens from humiliation at the hands of the police or any other agency in appropriate cases. Once the Court entertains reasonable doubt about the bona fides of the intended arrest of a citizen then it would be its duty to shield him."
10. For all the above reasons, I see no substance in both the applications for cancellation of bail, which are dismissed accordingly.