ORDER IFTIKHAR AHMAD CHEEMA, J.- 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 No. 1 to 3 by additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, vide his order dated 28.3.2000 in case FIR No. 95 dated 14.3.2000 registered under sections 408, 506 PPC, 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 No. 1 to 3 respectively, alleging therein that the aforesaid accused/respondents mis-appropriated the funds of National Homeopathic 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 o the file does not prima facie prove the mis-appropriation 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 FIR. Hence the commission of offence under section 408 PPC by the accused respondents appears to be a mere allegation. As regards the application- of section 506 PPC, I fully endorse the view expressed by the Court below that no time an place of the alleged threats is mentioned in the FIR. Moreover as per the allegation the threats were given three days prior of 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 to the accused/respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, are cogent an I 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.