Muhammad Gulzar Kiani, petitioner, has moved the instant petition under section 497(5), Cr.P.C. For the cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to the accused/respondents Nos.1 to 3 by Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, vide his order, dated 28-3-2000 in case F.I.R. No,95, dated 14-3-2000 registered under sections 408 and 506, P.P.C. At Police Station Cantt. Rawalpindi.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-- ' Muhammad Gulzar Kiani, petitioner, got registered the aforesaid case against Dr. Ashfaq Ahmad, Dr. Abdul Rauf and Asim Ahmad, respondents Nos.1 to 3 respectively, alleging therein that the aforesaid accused/respondents misappropriated the funds of National Homoepathic Medical College, and also threatened the complainant with dire consequences. The said accused/respondents applied for pre-arrest bail, which was allowed by Malik Muhammad Akram Awan, Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, and the same was confirmed vide impugned order, dated 28-3-2000 by him.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant has moved the instant application and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
4. There is no doubt or dispute that there is a deep-rooted enmity between the parties; the documentary material available on the file does not prima facie prove the misappropriation of funds against the accused/respondents beyond any reasonable doubt. It is also significant to note that there is an inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Hence the commission of offence under section 408, P.P.C. By the accused/respondents appears to be a mere allegation. As regards the application of section 506, P.P.C. I fully endorse the view expressed by the Court below that no time and place of the alleged threats is mentioned in the F.I.R. Moreover, as per the allegation the threats were given three days prior to the making of application to the police and no plausible explanation is offered for this delay.
5. The grounds offered for confirmation of the interim bail allowed to the accused/respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, are cogent and convincing and the impugned order does not bear the imprint of any illegality on its forehead.
6. The petition is devoid of force, which stands consequently dismissed.