1995 PLP 1134 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑5. 497‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 380‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Cancellation of bail‑‑‑High Court had allowed pre‑arrest bail to accused on the ground that they had already got a direction from High Court for registration of a case against the complainant party before. The registration of the present case against them and the possibility of their false implication, therefore, could not be ruled out‑‑‑Accused, in the document relied upon by the complainant had not admittedly any liability‑whereby dispute had been referred to arbitration‑‑‑Leave. to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ch. Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993. SALEEM AKHTAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court whereby the per‑arrest bail granted to respondents Nos.l and 2 was confirmed.

2. The petitioner had installed power-looms in which respondent No. 1 was employed. The petitioner lodged a report on 23‑8‑1992 that respondents Nos.l and 2 have stolen cloth worth Rs.3,36,

000. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 Muhammad Ramzan, real brother of respondent No.l had been visiting him in the factory. It is alleged that the respondents have confessed the guilt and promised to repay the amount and in this regard they had agreed for an arbitration as well. From the facts on record it seems that respondent No. 1 Muhammad Rafiq had made a complaint to the High Court that the Police had refused to register his complaint against the petitioner. By order dated 16‑8‑1992 the High Court directed the S.S.P:, Faisalabad to receive the complaint of respondent No. 1 for taking action on it according to law. The petitioner lodged his F.I.R. on 23‑8‑1992 after respondent No.l had taken action in the matter. The learned Judge in Chambers while taking note of the fact that the Investigating Officer had stated that respondents Nos.l and 2 have, been joining the investigation as and when they were asked to do so, further observed as follows: "Admitted position is that the petitioners obtained a direction from this Court for registration of a case against the complainant party on 16‑8‑1992 before the registration of this case against them. However, the case was registered against them by the Police on 23‑8‑1992. This being so the possibility of the false implication of the petitioners in the case in the given circumstances cannot be ruled out. The ad interim pre‑arrest bail already allowed to the petitioners on 7‑12‑1992 is hereby confirmed."

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had admitted to have committed theft and had agreed for an arbitrator for settlement of the dispute. The learned counsel referred to document at page 41 in support of his contention. This document merely states that there is a dispute between the parties about the theft of the cloth which is being referred to arbitration of Raja Riaz Ahmad, the Councillor and Chairman. From this document it seems that without admitting any liability, and disputing the claim the matter was referred to arbitration. In these circumstances and due to the reason given by the learned Judge in Chambers referred to above; leave is refused. N.H.Q./A‑1246/S Leave refused.