' This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos.4579/B of 1999 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,2433/B of 1999 as the petitioners Mst. Farkhanda Lodhi, Sabir Lodhi, Sajjad Shafi and Muhammad Idrees Tariq are seeking pre-arrest bail in same case F.I.R. No,40, dated 29-4-1999 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore for the offences under section 420/468/471/409/109, P.P.C. And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, at the instance of complainant Sh. Zafar Mahmud for an occurrence alleged to have taken place between the period from 1975 to 1999. The petitioner Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi is a retired Chief Librarian of Government College, Lahore and is President of Green View Cooperative Housing Society situated at Sheikhupura-Lahore Road. The petitioner Sabir Lodhi, husband of petitioner Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, is a retired Professor of Government College, Lahore. The petitioner Sajjad Shafi is Engineer by profession and is an employee of Green View Cooperative Housing Society. The petitioner Muhammad Idrees Tariq is serving as Vice-President of U.B.L., Lahore and is office-bearer of the abovemnetioned Housing Society.
2. The complainant lodged the complaint with the Prime Minister of Pakistan which has been made the basis of the present F.I.R. It seems that the complaint was marked to the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The note given by the police official at the end of F.I.R. Shows that the complaint was initially inquired into by the Inspector, Headquarters. It is also mentioned therein that during his preliminary inquiry, office-bearers of the Society including the petitioner Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi did not produce any record of the Society and they also did not join the inquiry proceedings and thereafter, a report recommending the registration of criminal case was submitted by the Inspector on 20-4-1999 to higher officials and the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore passed an order on 29-4-1999 for the registration of case against--
(i) ,Management Green View Housing Society, Sheikhupura Road, Lahore.
(ii) Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, President and Muhammad Idrees Tariq, Joint Secretary.
(iii) Sabir Lodhi, General Secretary, New Administration.
(iv) Sajjad Shafi, Site Engineer and Officer-in-charge etc. And the staff of Cooperative Department concerned with Green View Cooperative Housing Society, Circle Registrar Cooperative Societies, Lahore, Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lahore, the concerned Cooperative Inspectors and Audit Officers. Hence the abovesaid F.I.R.
3. The complaint/F.I.R. Is a lengthy document containing 29 specified allegations/instances. The complainant starts with the allegation that the Department of Cooperative Societies got created a Society comprising its favourites and these favourite office-bearers are indulging in large-scale corruption from the time of the establishment of the Society and the money belonging to the members of the Society is being put to the personal use of the office-bearers of which 29 instances have been quoted by the complainant as some of the incidents of the misappropriation of the Society's property by the office-bearers of the Society and the department of the Cooperative Society. It is necessary to refer to those 29 incidents given by the complainant and the same are, therefore, given below:-- "(1) That Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, President of Green View Housing Society divided six Kanals of land, allocated for mosque, into three equal shares and she herself is occupying one of the shares and the rest of the two shares have been allotted to her close friends.
(2) That in the elections of 1984, total strength of the members was 1700 and until 10-12-1993, no general meeting was held but the strength of the members increased to 1756 which is violative of the bye-laws. On 2-11-1993, Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, President of the Society purchased a piece of land measuring 8 Kanals when Deputy Registrar, Lahore vide his order, dated 27-10-1993, referring to the bye-law No,23, had already suspended the management of the Society.
(3) That the President sold out almost five lac bricks of soling leading from Sui Gas Workshop to Main Sheikhupura Road through Site Engineer and out of those bricks, eight thousands bricks were purchased by Malik Younas from Ashraf Contractor, for which neither any receipt was given, nor it was so mentioned in the accounts book.
(4) That whenever any member wants to get the lease deed of plot arranged, three/four thousand rupees are received for two Kanals plot, but, in fact, official stamp papers are purchased for Rs,1,360 only and the remaining amount is usurped by Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi and her management.
(5) That Farkhanda Lodhi and the administration in collusion with Sajjad Shafi, sold out tractor- trolley etc. Belonging to the Society, for a sum of rupees one lac to their favourites and only a sum of Rs,41,000 have been deposited in the Society account.
(6) That the President got purchased Suzuki Car No,LHN/8984 out of Society's money for Sajjad Shafi without getting prior approval in the meeting and commission was also obtained from this sale transaction.
(7) That the Society's agricultural land measuring 80 Acres has been given for the last 15 years to a man for an annual lease for a sum of Rs,2,40,000 but in the official record, only 50 Acres of land has been shown and rupees twenty-six thousands only are being deposited in the account of Society.
The lease of other agricultural lands adjacent to those of Society is Rs,3,000 or 3,500 per Acre.
(8) That there is no Store Keeper or Accounts Officer and even there is no staff in the office except Sajjad, who is not only causing losses to the Society by selling electrical polls, water supply pipes, bricks of soling, concrete, iron bars and office furniture belonging to the Society, at the abetment of Farkhanda Lodhi, President but also he is misappropriating the amounts of the members.
(9) That the management of the Society has given multiple assignments to Sajjad Shafi, who treats the resident members roughly, for which a case F.I.R. No,55 of 1996 has been registered against him at Police Station Naseerabad, Gulberg-III, Lahore and he is absconder in the same.
(10) That Sajjad Shafi has friendship with professional criminals and he at the abetment of Farkhanda Lodhi and her bogus management, arranges for thefts in the houses of the members and its proof is that four time theft occurrence took place in D/40 and a case F.I.R. No,57 of 1997 was got registered at Police Station Factory Area, Kot Abdul Malik.
(11) That due to his employment in Green View, Sajjad Shafi has started his own business of dealing in properties and he cheats the members by making misstatements to the effect that their plots have come underneath Motorway and nothing will be given to them. He usually purchases the plots at nominal rates and then sells those plots at much higher rates and that is why he has taken a two Kanal plot from Mrs. Zahida and one plot from Malik Younas.
(12) That Sajjad Shafi, who is managing whole affairs of Farkhanda administration and is an ordinary employee, by corrupt practices, has built a beautiful residence in Madina Town, Faisalabad for a consideration of Rs,25,00,000 and has another residence of almost same cost in his native town Sargodha.
(13) That in order to expel the members from the locality, the President and Management of Green View Cooperative Department have the tendency to frequently deinstal the transformer and pose as if it were stolen and after a few days, they themselves arrange for its reinstallation by saying that some of its equipment had been stolen by the thieves and now they have arranged those articles afresh. In this way, they are looting away the Society's money. If the transformer as so stolen, then why F.I.R. Was not registered and why the matter was concealed from WAPDA?
(14) That it is very sorry state of affairs that Farkhanda Lodhi and her management have misplaced the registry of Green View Society.
(15) That audit of the society has never taken place. The management arrange for the audits of the Society according to their own choice. If the audit report is gone into, one would be astonished to know that firstly they get their audit done after ten years and secondly they have shown to have spent more than six lacs of rupees annually irrespective of the fact that the Society's income is not to such an extent. They do not spend even a penny on the development and it is requested that their official audit may be arranged.
(16) That the main road of Green View Cooperative Housing Society which was got constructed from the Motorway Authority five months ago, is now in dilapidated condition and one can examine it at the spot.
(17) That adjacent to R-154, Farkhanda Lodhi has occupied two plots and a four-wall has been erected around these two plots from the bricks of soling and the soling bricks of Green View has been sold out to Malik Younas and Bashir Chowkidar.
(18) That the trees belonging to the Green View Housing Society are being cut and sold, for which no record is maintained.
(19) That toll tax at the rates of Rs,10, 20 and 5 is received from the vehicles and the such income is usurped by Farkhanda Lodhi, Sajjad Shafi, Idrees Tariq, Sabir Lodhi and other staff of the department and there is no record of the same.
(20) That for the purposes of extracting commission, cemented polls and cables were purchased unnecessarily which were later on sold out and the amount was misappropriated and the necessary sanction was not obtained in a meeting.
(21) That in the Society substandard soling was laid by a Contractor from Daewoo, which was cleared up by the President and management after having received bribery.
(22) That the development charges, electricity bills and transfer fees received from the members of the Society are not deposited in the bank, rather the same are misappropriated.
(23) That the transaction of the amount lying in the accounts of Green View Society is not shown to the members despite their insistence.
' Such an amount is utilized for commercial purposes and after ten years before the taking place of the audit, the amount is re-deposited in the bank or certificates are purchased. The true position can be made clear after checking bank statement.
(24) That in regard to the various articles lying in the Society, there is neither any stock register, nor attendance register and nor Service Rules for the employees have been framed.
(25) That after having gone through the record, it may be probed that before the holding of last elections, from the bogus members shown by Farkhanda Lodhi and her management, how many members were from one and the same family and were they made members in accordance with law and wherefrom the land was obtained?
(26) That uptil now the President and her management have spent lacs of rupees but they ever obtained its permission in the general meeting. Farkhanda Lodhi is not allowed to spend more than a few lacs of rupees without holding general meeting and she always violated the bye-laws.
(27) That whoever comes to office to get the plot transferred, bribe is received from him and in case of refusal to pay bribe, such a member is harassed for 2/3 years.
(28) That the minutes of meeting are never shown to the members so that the irregularities committed by them are not known to others. To conceal their embezzlement, much of the record has been shifted. The electricity bills to the tune of labs of rupees has been received from the resident members and owners of poultry farms.
(29) That they were given membership in the Society in 1970-71 and complete development charges were received from them, but they are still without basic facilities like electricity, water, gas, telephone, roads, schools and hospitals."
4. The complainant after having narrated these incidents/allegations thus, requested for the registration of criminal case against Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi and the management of the Green View Housing Society, the Department of Cooperative Societies and the petitioner Sajjad Shafi for the refund of the looted public money.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate-General representing the State, learned counsel for the complainant and have also heard Mr. Shafqat Bari, Assistant Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment who is presently conducting the investigation of this case and is present with record.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been involved in a mala fide manner by the complainant because of the election rivalry as the complainant contested elections of the Green View Housing Society against the petitioner Mst. Farkhanda Lodhi in 1984 as well as in 1993 and both the times he lost and having, thus, failed, he now wants to grab the society through this manner. It is also argued that the enmity between the parties is manifest from the fact that Faisal Mahmood, son of the complainant got criminal case F.I.R. No,55 of 1996 lodged against petitioner, Sajjad Shafi, which stands discharged. Then another case F.I.R. No,160 of 1999, dated 15-3-1999 has been lodged by the same Faisal Mahmood against all the petitioners in which pre-arrest bail of the petitioners has been confirmed. It is submitted next that petitioner, Sabir Lodhi, aged 65 years, is a retired professor of Government College, Lahore, he is not an office- bearer of the society and he has been falsely involved merely because he is husband of the petitioner, Farkhanda Lodhi. In regard to Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, it is submitted that she is a retired Head Librarian of Government College, Lahore and is 63 years old and she has been involved merely because she is a lawfully elected office-bearer of the society. It is also submitted that she is seriously ill and was constrained to file Writ Petition No,5729 of 1999 which was disposed of by Mr. Justice Khawaja Muhammad Sharif on 2-4-1999 with the following observations:-- "On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Mst. Farkhanda Lodhi, wife of the petitioner is seriously ill and she cannot joint the investigation and even she is not in such condition to go to the office of the Investigating Officer. Taking in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I direct Tariq Mahmood, Inspector/Investigating Officer, A.C.E./HQ, that after informing the petitioner and Mst. Farkhanda Lodhi, wife of the petitioner, he should visit their house and record the statement of Mst. Farkhanda Lodhi in accordance with law, if she is in a position to make a statement. Disposed of accordingly."
But the Investigating Officer in a mala fide manner has not bothered to record the statement of Mst. Farkhanda Lodhi because he is not interested in the proper investigation of the case and he is merely interested in the arrest of the petitioners.
7. It is submitted that the petitioner, Sajjad Shafi is an engineer by profession and is an employee of the Society and the allegations against him are merely general in nature and he has been involved because he is carrying out the affairs of the Society in accordance with the directions of the Managing Committee of the Society and similar is the case of petitioner Muhammad Idrees Tariq who is an Assistant Vice-President of U.B.L:
8. The petitioners also allege that the Anti-Corruption Establishment is merely interested in the arrest of the petitioners because one Sh. Aftab Ahmed, the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister is personally interested and is personally disposed towards the complainant and is interfering in this matter against the petitioners. It is submitted next that the petitioners have all along been ready and willing to join the investigation but as the Investigating officer is not interested in the inquiry/investigation and is merely interested in the arrest of the petitioners, therefore, he has not permitted the petitioners to join the investigation so far, so much so that in spite of the order passed by this Court he has not recorded the statement of petitioner, Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi at her residence. Learned counsel for the petitioners have furnished a handwritten note showing the various dates on which the petitioners have tried to join the investigation but the Investigating Officer has not bothered. The note also shows that ultimately the petitioners sent the relevant papers showing falsehood of allegations levelled against them in the F.I.R. Through T.C.S., vide receipt, dated 21-5-1999 (copy attached) to the Investigating Officer but the same was not received by him and was returned which also shows his mala fide.
9. Touching upon the legal issues involved in the present petition, it has been argued that the present case has been registered against the petitioners by the Anti-Corruption Establishment in haste in a mala fide manner due to political pressure, without holding any preliminary enquiry in violation of Rules 5, 6, 7 and 8 of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, that the allegations levelled in the complaint prima facie touch the business and internal management of the Cooperative Society, which can only be referred to the Registrar of the Cooperative Society under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act for a decision by him, who under section 50-A(2) of the said Act can competently initiate criminal prosecution and, therefore, the present prosecution is illegal and even otherwise the same complaint has already been sent to the Registrar Cooperative Society, who is looking into the allegations, that the allotment of plots allegedly in violation of the allotment policy do not constitute any offence unless the evidence is available on the record to show that the same was made after obtaining illegal gratification, that mere disappearance of property entrusted is not sufficient to establish and constitute misappropriation, that the allegations contained in the complaint are vague without any specific stances and it does not contain any dates and the names of the witnesses etc. And that arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjust harassment is valid consideration for the grant of pre-arrest bail. In the end, it has been argued that the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused even at the bail stage. In support of the contentions reliance is placed on Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 133, Ch. Attaa Mohayo-ud-Din v. State and 2 others 1999 M LD 1882, Khanzada Hidayat Ali Khan v. Mazhar Ali Khan and others 1985 PCr.LJ 2871, Muhammad Sharif and others v. Union Bank Ltd. And others AIR 1932 Lah. 53, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Special Court and others ' 1998 PCr.LJ 162, Syed Mustafa Shah v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 358, Khushi Muhammad and 4 others v.
Abdul Hafeez and another 1982 PCr.LJ 218 and Jamaluddin v. The State 1985 SCM R 1949.
10. In Attaa Mohayo-ud-Din v. State (supra), a learned Judge of this Court while considering the import of Rules 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, held that "according to the above rules, the first step was the receipt of information, i,e, the complaint and the 2nd was for the holding of a preliminary inquiry by the competent officer of the Anti-Corruption Establishment by joining a person against whom the information has been received so that the identity of the complainant and the genuineness of the complaint is ascertained and thirdly, if it is so ascertained then to register the case and proceed further in accordance with law. In this case, learned Judge quashed the F.I.R. Because the preliminary inquiry did not precede the registration of criminal case by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. In Khanzada Hidayat Ali Khan v. Mazhar Ali Khan and others (supra), the petitioner-complainant file 9 private complaints before the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption against Mazhar Ali Khan and others in respect of offences under section 409/420/468/166/ 167/109, P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act in respect of cheating, forgery and embezzlement committed by the respondents in the course of their duties as members of the Management Committee and or as the Secretary of the Model Town Cooperative Society. The accused were summoned to attend the Court. Before preliminary evidence could be recorded, the respondents submitted an application under section 249-X, Cr.P.C. In each of the nine cases, submitting that no criminal offences stood made out against them and that the allegations levelled against them related to the internal management and business of the Model Town Cooperative Society, for which the petitioner/complainant had a remedy under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The Special Judge accepted the applications and acquitted the accused in all the nine cases. Being aggrieved thereby, the complainant filed nine petitions seeking leave to appeal with the plea that the matters covered by section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 are civil matters and do not relate to the offences mentioned in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, or the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 which offences are exclusively triable by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Punjab. The petitions were resisted from the accused side on the ground that the matters were purely relateable to the business or internal management of the Cooperative Society. The learned Single Judge of this Court found that prima facie in each case the dispute touched the business and internal management of Model Town Cooperative Society. It was also held that "under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, any dispute touching the business of a Society, which arises between the Society or its committee on the one hand or any past and present member of the Society, on the other hand, can only be referred to the Registrar of Cooperative Societies for decision by him or his nominee, or, if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration of three arbitrators. Where such dispute is referred to the Registrar and he finds that certain members of the Management Committee or the office-bearers of the Society have cheated the. Society or committed forgery or embezzled or misappropriated its funds, he can initiate an inquiry under section 43 and under section 44-B of the Cooperative Societies Act, can exercise any of the powers given to him under section 50-A, including the power to initiate criminal prosecution under section 50-A(2) of the Act. Learned Single Judge, thus, dismissed the petitions in limine and upheld the orders of acquittal of the accused as recorded by the trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. In Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. Special Court and others (supra), a Full Bench of this Court accepted the petition of the petitioners Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, quashed the proceedings.
In this case, the petition filed by the petitioner-accused Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif under section 265-K of the Cr.P.C. For his acquittal was dismissed by the Special Court. A Full Bench of this Court while accepted the Constitutional petition of Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif for the quashment of F.I.R. Held that nothing was available on the record to substitute the dishonest misappropriation, conversion to one's own use or disposal of the property in violation of any law constituting criminal breach of trust. It was also held that in the absence of any allegation against the accused of having prepared an incorrect record, section 218, P.P.C. Was not attracted. It was also held that section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was also not attracted as there was nothing on the record to suggest that the accused had made the allotments of the land in question after obtaining illegal gratification or bribe from the allottees. In Syed Mustafa Shah v. The State (supra), it has been held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that mere disappearance of property entrusted is not sufficient to establish misappropriation unless it is also proved by the prosecution that the accused is responsible for doing himself or suffering some other person to do the acts mentioned in section 405, P.P.C. It is also held that the accused cannot be held guilty of criminal misconduct merely for suffering the loss to be incurred unless he either himself dishonestly misappropriates property or deliberately allows someone else to do so and that failure to discharge responsibilities for safe custody of property would not .Per se amount to establishment of offence of criminal misappropriation within the meaning of section 409, P.P.C. Nor any offence of criminal misconduct under section 5 of Act II of 1949. In Jamaluddin v. The State (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated the principle that arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment was a valid consideration for the grant of pre-arrest bail.
11. Learned Additional Advocate-General has opposed the contentions but has conceded that on the basis of same allegations, proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. Learned counsel for the complainant while vehemently opposing the petition submits that the petitioners are guilty of fraud, .Embezzlement and misappropriation of the property belonging to the Housing Society and, therefore, they are not entitled to the grant of bail before arrest. It has also been argued that the petitioners have not joined the investigation so far and, thus, their conduct disentitles them to the grant of any discretionary relief from this Court. Learned counsel has reiterated the allegations as levelled by the complainant in the F.I.R., detailed above. Mr. Shafqat Bari, Assistant Director, Anti- Corruption Establishment, present in Court, has also opposed the petitions and has submitted that the petitioners have committed fraud and embezzlement involving crores of rupees. However, in an answer to a query of this Court that as to why he has not recorded the statement of Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi at her residence as was directed in Writ Petition No,5729 of 1999 on 4-2-1999, he has merely stated that he has recently been assigned the investigation of the present case and he did not know any such order of this Court.
12. The complainant has the established election rivalry with Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, the president of the Society. He contested the election against her in 1984 as well as in 1993 and he lost both the times. The complainant's son Faisal Mahmood got registered criminal case F.I.R. No,55 of 1996 against the petitioner Sajjad Shafi which failed and then he has got another criminal case F.I.R.
No,160 of 1999 registered against all the petitioners on 15-3-1999. This background shows the enmity between the parties, therefore, the allegations of the petitioners that they have been involved in a' mala fide manner by the complainant due to election rivalry with a view to grab the Green View Housing Society for his personal gains is not without basis and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioners may have been involved falsely in a mala fide manner by the complainant. The hurried manner in which the petitioners have been involved in the present case on a written complaint of the complainant addressed to the Prime Minister, by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, without holding any preliminary inquiry reflect the mala fide of the Anti-Corruption Establishment and the possibility cannot be ruled out that the petitioners may have been involved by the Anti-Corruption Establishment on the asking of a political high up as alleged by the petitioners. The present case has been registered against the petitioners by the Anti-Corruption Establishment without holding any preliminary inquiry in violation of Rules, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Rules, 1985 and the bare reading of the Rules demonstrates that the Anti- Corruption Establishment is bound to hold a preliminary inquiry before ordering ,the registration of a criminal case. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Attaa Mohayo-ud-Din v. The State (supra) has, thus, correctly held that the F.I.R. Registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment in violation of the abovesaid Rules, without holding any preliminary inquiry was based on mala fide. The stubborn manner in which the Anti-Corruption Establishment has refused to associate the petitioners in the inquiry/investigation, even after the registration of the present case, also reveals that the Anti- Corruption Establishment is not interested in a genuine inquiry and investigation but is merely urging for the arrest of the petitioners. This Court, keeping in view the physical infirmity of petitioner Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, directed the Investigating Officer to record her statement at her residence but even this first step towards the investigation has not been taken "so far by the Investigating Officer. It has been brought on the record that the petitioners sent the relevant papers in the defence of the allegations levelled against them through T.C.S. Vide receipt, dated 21-5-1999, to the Investigating Officer, but the same were not received by him and were returned. This indicates that the prosecution is not interested in bringing on record the point of view of the accused and wants to proceed further with the present case only on the basis of allegations levelled in the F.I.R. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the prosecution is merely interested in the arrest of the petitioners for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjust harassment, has, thus, force. In Jamal-ud-Din v. The State (supra), the Honourable Supreme Court has held that such like ulterior motives are also a valid consideration for the grant of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, President of Housing Society, is physically infirm person suffering from paralysis and on this ground alone she is entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail. The petitioner Sabir Lodhi, a retired Profession from Government College, Lahore, seems to have been involved merely because he is husband of Mrs. Farkhanda Lodhi, otherwise he does not seem to have any connection with the affairs of the Society.
13. In view of the above mentioned, the applications are allowed and the pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioners is confirmed on the bail bonds already furnished by them.