' The respondents Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Aslam were granted bail in a case under sections 363 and 366, P. P. C. For abducting M.s. Perveen Akhtar allegedly a minor girl who is the daughter of petitioner Amir Khan. The Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, granted bail before arrest to Muhammad Iqbal, respondent, on 10th of June, 1974, and on the same day granted bail after arrest to Muhammad Aslam respondent. On 13th of June, 1974, on the basis of a report made by Brigadier Inayat Ullah. Secretary of Pindi Club, the police visited the premises of the Club and found the two respondents along with six others armed and threatening the complainant party.
The case of the complainant was they had come there with a view to re-abduct his daughter.
2. An application for cancellation was moved in the Sessions Court which was dismissed by Mian Ghulam Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, by order dated 3rd of August, 1974. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, observed that the allegations of the applicant i,e, the complainant seemed to have some substance. It was, however, urged before him that the complainant was peon in the Pindi Club and the Secretary was disposed to help him. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not give any categorical decision on the fact whether or not the Secretary was partial to the complainant and proceeded to accept the solemn undertaking given by the respondents that they will behave in future, and would not in any manner try to temper with the prosecution evidence. It appears that the submissions made to him in relation to the partiality of the Secretary had some subjective influence on his mind although he did not give expression to this opinion in his order. I feel that there were no reasons to think that the Secretary was in any way trying to be partial to the complainant. He is the Chief Executive of the Club and in case of breach of peace it was his duty to inform the police. One of the police officers who visited the spot appeared before me yesterday and stated that the Police arrested seven persons at the spot including Muhammad Iqbal and Muhammad Aslant both of whom were armed.
3. The crucial question before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was whether or not the two respondents had by a show of force forfeited their right to remain on bail. These questions were not squarely adverted to in spite of the fact that the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that there was some substance in the allegations of the complainant.
4. Mr. Rab Nawaz Niazi, the learned counsel for the respondents, submits that since the dismissal of the application for cancellation of bail the respondents have kept their undertaking not to influence the evidence. He points out that on the other hand the complainant party have given a beating to Iqbal respondent, in respect of which a case has been separately registered.
5. This latter incident has no relevancy in the context of the present) case. There is evidence to show that the two respondents, by show of force, alongwith others misused their liberty on hail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not properly exercise his discretion in refusing to cancel the to the two respondents. I direct that the to the respondents shall stand cancelled and they shall be arrested.
Bail cancelled.