JUDGMENT S.M. ZUBAIR, J.- This is petition for cancellation of bail of the respondent allowed to her by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 16.6.1994 in case FIR No. 425/92 dated 1.10.1992 under section 420/406 PPC registered at Police Station Gulshan-e-Ravi, Lahore.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the report was lodged by the petitioner against some unknown lady for defrauding the complainant of one VCR and TV along with film cassette. The occurrence took place on 31.8.1992 whereas the matter was reported to the police on 1.10.1992.
Learned counsel contended that pre-arrest to the respondent has frustrated the investigation, hence the police could not make the necessary recovery from the respondent and the bail granting order is contrary to the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in PLD 1984 SC 192 and PLD 1983 SC 82. He further contended that after reading the newspaper the petitioner learnt that the lady was arrested by Garhi Shahu Police Station in a case of similar nature, where she defrauded a person of TV and VCR, so the Gulshan-e-Ravi Police Station arraigned the respondent as accused but she procured pre-arrest bail.
3. Learned counsel for the State assisted by the police officer has opposed this application, as the police is not interested for further investigation.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that no description of respondent is given in the FIR which was lodged on 1.10.1992 and now at a belated stage with ulterior motive and just to victimize the lady, the complainant has moved this petition for the cancellation of bail whereas the police is not interested in the further investigation of the case, as per statement of the learned counsel for the State. Even on merit he submitted that the report was submitted 33 days after the occurrence which remained unexplained and Shaukat Property Dealer on whose introduction, the alleged property was leased out to the respondent by Noor Muhammad, resident of Siddiquia Colony, Multan Road has not supported the prosecution case.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
Admittedly, the respondent is a woman and without there being strong evidence against her, it would not be in the interest of justice to give her custody to the police in a case registered after 33 days of occurrence. Even police has not moved this Court for the cancellation of bail. The complainant has moved this petition with some ulterior motive, hence the conditions laid down by their Lordships mentioned above are fulfilled. The petition is dismissed.