This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declined to cancel the post-arrest bail granted to the respondents by an Additional Sessions Judge in a case involving offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner argued that the respondents were connected to the alleged offenses and that the lower courts lacked jurisdiction because the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was investigating the matter. The Supreme Court examined whether the bail should be cancelled, noting that the respondents had demonstrated good faith by repaying affected persons and depositing remaining amounts with the investigating agency. The Court held that the considerations for granting bail differ from those for its cancellation. It found that the respondents were not required for further investigation, no abuse of bail was alleged, and the case was distinguishable from the cited precedent because no NAB Reference had been filed and no accountability laws were invoked. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that bail should not be cancelled merely to satisfy the complainant's desire for vengeance.
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Abdul Rasheed Khan petitioner-complainant has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 11-11-2010 passed by a learned Judge-in- Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi whereby cancellation of post- arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad vide order dated 24-5-2010 was declined in case F.I.R. No. 310 registered at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad on 17-6-2008 in respect of offenses under sections 406/420/ 468/471/411/109/34, P.P.C.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that sufficient incriminating evidence was available on the record of this case connecting respondents Nos. 1 and 2 with the alleged offences and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad was not justified in admitting them to post-arrest bail. He has also maintained that the criminal case in hand is being investigated by the National Accountability Bureau and, thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad and a learned Single Bench of the High Court lacked jurisdiction to admit the said respondents to bail and in this connection he has referred to the case of Muhammad Ilyas, Chief Manager/Attorney of Allied Bank Ltd. v. Shahid Ullah, and others PLD 2009 SC 446. As against that the learned Deputy Attorney-General and the learned Additional Prosecutor-General have maintained in unison that initially the investigation of this case was carried out by the local police but at present the National Accountability Bureau is inquiring into the matter and so far no Reference has been filed by the National Accountability Bureau against respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
They have gone on to submit that respondent No. 1 has already repaid the relevant amount to most of the affected persons and he has deposited the remaining amount with the investigating agency in order to establish his bona fide in the matter. They have further submitted that the petitioner-complainant has persistently refused to join the investigation and he is not cooperating with the investigating agency. It has also been maintained by them that no specific allegation has been levelled against respondent No. 2 and both respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are not required by the National Accountability Bureau for the purposes of investigation at this point of time.
3. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Attorney-General and the Additional Prosecutor- General clearly show that respondent No.1 has already repaid the relevant amounts to most of the affected persons and he has also deposited the remaining amount with the investigating agency in order to establish his good faith in the matter and that no specific allegation stands levelled against respondent No.2. It is further apparent from their submissions that the petitioner- complainant is not cooperating in the investigation and also that physical custody of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is not required by the investigating agency at this juncture. It is not denied that so far the State or the National Accountability Bureau has not sought cancellation of bail allowed to respondents Nos.1 and 2 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad and, thus, their bail cannot be cancelled merely to wreak vengeance of the complainant party. It is trite that considerations for grant of bail and those for its cancellation are entirely different. We have been informed that a Challan has already been submitted in this case. This Court is generally slow in cancelling an accused person's bail at such a stage of a criminal case. No allegation has been levelled by the petitioner-complainant, the State or the National Accountability Bureau regarding any misuse or abuse of the concession of bail by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, we have not found any occasion for cancelling their bail, particularly when their custody is not even required by the investigating agency at the present juncture. The precedent case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has been found by us to be quite distinguishable from the facts of the present case because admittedly the Challan in this case has already been submitted before a criminal court of ordinary jurisdiction and no Reference has so far been filed against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by the National Accountability Bureau before an Accountability Court. It is also admitted at all hands that no penal provision under the Accountability law has so far been invoked in the F.I.R. Registered in this case.
4. For what has been discussed above this petition is dismissed and I B leave to appeal is refused.