' D.S.P. Chung, having specially been summoned, is in attendance, and states that in his presence Niamat All accused had undertaken to make payment of Rs,4,60,000, which he owed to the complainant. Niamat All says that S.M. Amin Haider complainant also owes to him a larger amount, which he has been promising to pay. This claim he did not put forth before the D.S.P., according to the latter. In any case, it is not disputed, even by the complainant, who is present before me today, that there has been going on a dispute between the parties in regard to payment of money, as they have been operating as property-dealers. Normally such disputes have to be decided by the Civil Courts.
2. If however, any offence is committed in the course of such money transactions or property matters, the person at fault has to be taken to task and proceeded against for his criminal liability as well. If what has been incorporated in the F.I.R. Is taken to be correct, a serious case under section 380, P.P.C. Would be made out against Niamat All and his accomplices; but on the face of it, as has been observed by me in my order, dated 29-9-1992, the complainant's version does not appeal to reason. Although the complainant was deceitfully deprived of an amount of Rs,10,25,000 and certain important documents (contained in a briefcase) by the accused persons, who had trapped him, he preferred to remain in state of inaction over several weeks, and when he came across Niamat alias Niajo, as is stated in the F.I.R. The latter held out a promise to return the money, alongwith the papers belonging to the complainant. It appears that Mr. S.M. Amin Haider, who retired as a senior officer of the Excise and Taxation Department, had used his influence and had been able to prevail upon the police to convert a story of his own into first information report, lodged at Police Station Hanjarwal, District Lahore, on 29-7-1992.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has placed reliance on a few reported cases, as PLD 1983 SC- 82 and PLD 1984 SC 192 in urging that extraordinary concession of pre-arrest bail is not to be extended to an accused, unless the police agency is found to have acted with malice and driven him into an apprehension of his unjustified arrest, on implication in a false case. This principle of law and its prudence cannot indeed be questioned, although I have always been susceptible about the rationale of the rule emphasizing, as the superior Courts have hitherto done, mala fides or malice on the part of the police, the reason being that police agency acts, on being approached by the complainant, and it is the motivated or malicious move made by the complainant that plays its part, in the first instance, and becomes the basis of a punitive action that is then initiated by the Investigating Agency, on registration of the case. Thus, preponderance has to be given to the nature of conduct of the complainant, whether it is bona fide or mala fide, for it precedes the police action, and it has of course, to be ascertained if the police has proceeded in a wrongful direction, while acting in collusion with the complainant; and thus, in actual practice it is the unholy and ulterior nature of the manner in which the complainant has chosen to conduct himself in moving the machinery of police, in an endeavour either to redress his well-founded grievances, or to undo the wrong done to him by a wrong-doer, an offender, or having as its intent and object only insult or incarceration of his adversary, which factor has to be verified or probed into by the Court in an effort to know if it is the complainant who has to be afforded relief, or it is the accused who has to he provided protection against impending curb of his liberty or against his apprehended arrest at the hands of the police.
4. In the instant case, I fmd that the complainant is aiming at recovery of an amount by adopting coercive and awe-inspiring mode of registration of a criminal case against the person, who has some monetary obligation towards him, to whom even he has to pay some money. He has stated in open Court that he indeed is not aware of the exact extent of his own liability, and thus has not asserted that he does not owe anything to Niamat Ali accused. Involvement of the accused in the case thus has not been done in an honest way. A perusal of record of investigation also reveals that he has not been able to place before the Investigating Agency any worthwhile material and produce oral evidence of any consequence to establish soundness of his claim and the allegations levelled against the accused in the F.I.R. And to show that any incident of the kind had ever occurred and he had been deprived of his money in the manner stated. He had never appeared in the Court earlier and even today he came for a while and then disappeared. Before the police he had also not pursued the matter with diligence and in right earnest.
5. Once the bail has been granted, there should be in existence strong and exceptional grounds, justifying its cancellation; and I do not think, such circurnstnaces and conditions have been brought out by the complainant in making the prayer that the concession of bail extended to the accused be withdrawn. I proceed to reject the petition.