' Briefly stated, the facts of the area that the petitioner/complainant, a Carri Contractor, of the Forest Development Corporation, had received a Crossed-Cheque, amounting to Rs,2,70,000 drawn on the Allied Bank of Pakistan, at Timargara, from the F.D.C. Authorities. The complainant withdrew the said amount from the Bank (in 4-9-1997 and placed the amount in a plastic bag and proceeded towards the Flying Coach Adda. The petitioner had hardly reached the main Bazar, when in the meantime, -respondent No,1, Azhar Taqweem, met him and requested him to take his letter which was to be delivered at Calkot. Respondent No,1 also requested him to take a cup of tea with him. Accordingly both of them went to a Hotel, situated in the nearby street, and it was there that the respondent ordered for the tea. There, the contesting respondent (No,1) started writing a letter. The petitioner, on the other hand, kept the plastic bag, containing the amount, next to him, on the ground. The respondent, it is alleged, suddenly picked up the plastic bag containing the money and walked away towards the village.
2. The petitioner reported the incident to the Police. In the first instance the report was reduced in the form of a murasila which was then dispatched to the Police Station, Timargara, where F.I.R. No, 359, dated 4-9-1997 was duly registered under section 379, P.P.C., read with section 14 of the Offence Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 at 11-00 hours, on the same day.
3. Soon after the registration of the case, and to avoid his arrest respondent No,1, approached the Court of Sessions Judge/Zailla Izafi Qazi, Dir at Timargara (Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Khan) which admitted him to pre-arrest interim bail on 19-9.1997. The same was later confirmed on 2-2-1998.
4. Hence this petition for the cancellation of pre-arrest bail has been filed by the complainant/petitioner.
5. Mr. Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate assisted by M/s. Rohaida Sajjad, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner, Qazi Zakiuddin, Advocate assisted by Said Taint. Khan, Advocate learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Kh. Azhar Rashid, learned Assistant Advocate-General for State/respondent No,2 present and heard. Record of the case perused.
6. It is now well-settled that the power of granting pre-arrest bail has to be exercised sparingly and in appropriate cases only. The Courts are to avoid the exercise of the said power at random as it is likely to embarrass the prosecution in investigation. However, if the accused, prima facie, makes out a case that he has been involved in the case falsely and because of some mala fide intention on the part of the complainant or that the complainant or the Police intended to arrest him as a result of some intrigue or that the arrest was to be made to ridicule the accused for ulterior motive, in order to disgrace him by handcuffing him, then in that case, he could be allowed pre-arrest bail by the Court of competent jurisdiction.
7. In the case in hand, it has been admitted by the complainant himself, as is clear from F.I.R., that his son, namely Mutabar Khan and respondent No,1 had some business dealings. The contesting respondent accused's counsel has placed on file a compromise deed as well as the order of the Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, Dir at Timargara, dated 23-5-1997 which shows that respondent No,1, Azhar Taqweem, had some business dealings with the son of the petitioner/complainant regarding which he (respondent No,1) had instituted a suit in the Court of Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi Timargara which ended in a compromise because of the efforts of the elders/notables of the Illaqa. According to the compromise the petitioner's son was to give. To respondent No,1 a sum of Rs,3,00,000 (Three lacs only). It would, therefore, follow that the petitioner had initiated this criminal case against respondent No,1 (Azhar Taqweem) in order to set at naught the effect of that compromise which his son had effected with the respondent-accused.
8. The Sessions Judge/Zaila Izafi Qazi who had allowed pre-arrest bail to respondent No,1 seems to have exercised the discretion vested in him judiciously and has given valid reasons for his conclusion. His order is neither arbitrary nor perverse and needs no interference by this Court.
9. Even otherwise, the story as advanced by the petitioner, in the FIR.. Does not appeal to reason. I fail to understand as to why he took such a huge amount With him in a polythene bag and then readily agreed to have a cup of tea with the accused-respondent. I also fail to understand as to why the said amount was kept by him on the ground and as to why he did not raise any hue and cry when the accused-respondent allegedly walked away with his money.
10. Apart from the above the mere fact that the occasion was not witnessed by anybody from the public cannot be lost sight of.
11. Accordingly, without dilating upon the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for the cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to the accused-respondent.
12. This petition is without an substance and is accordingly dismissed.