Das, J.

1. This application for bail raises an important and indeed an interesting question as to the power of the High Court to grant bail to persons who have not yet been arrested on any actual charge of any offence or even on suspicion of their complicity with any offence but who apprehend that they may be harassed by being arrested on unfounded suspicion or a false charge.

2. The application has been made by two petitioners. The petitioner Amir Chand is a practising lawyer at Karnal and is also a Municipal Commissioner at Panipat/ He is a Director of several companies at Karnal, Panipat and Delhi and ia the Chairman of the Board of Directors of one of them. The petitioner Baghu-nath Bass claims to have been a leading businessman of Gujranwala having had a mill at Kamoka in the district of Gujranwala and paying annually Rs. 35,000 as land revenue and Bs. 3,000 as income.tax. Since the partition of the Punjab, this petitioner migrated to Delhi where he is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of a company named the East Punjab Trading Company, Limited. He is also a nomi-nated member of the Municipal Committee, Panipat, In Para. 3 of the petition it is stated that the police wants to arrest the petitioners and harass them for some ulterior motives on the allegations that the petitioners as partners of the National Iron and Steel Works at Karnal did certain acts in contravention of the provisions of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946. Thereafter, the petitioners set out several acts which they think they are suspected by the police to have committed and then proceed to show, by reference to cash memos and otherwise, that the said acts did not constitute any contravention of the Act at all. They plead that they have co-operated with the police in the investigation by giving all information and offer to produce their books whenever required. They say that they are not afraid to face any trial and that there is no likelihood of their absconding and that in view of the fact that the police has already recorded the statements of all prosecution witnesses Under Section 164, Criminal P.C. there can be no question of the petitioners tampering with the witnesses. Two affidavits, one sworn by each petitioner, have been filed in further support of the application. In his affidavit the petitioner Amir Chand states, inter alia, that after the partition of the Punjab he did not for some time renew his legal practitioners licence and for a short time became a partner of the firm National Iron and Steel Works, Karnal, that he never took any active part in and has no knowledge of the working of the firm which used to be carried on by one Kalyan Dass who had been definitely instructed not to do any. thing contrary to the rules, that he severed his connection with the firm at the end of April 1949 when he renewed his legal practitioners license and resumed his practice at the bar, that the First Information Report lodged by the C.I.D. relates entirely to the dealings of the firm in May 1949 when he was no longer a partner and that yet the police with ulterior motives wants to arrest him. In the other affidavit the petitioner Raghunath Dass affirms, amongst other things, that he was only a sleeping partner in the firm and has no personal knowledge of its workings which used to be carried on entirely by Kalyan Dass who had been definitely told not to do anything contrary to the rules, that he was and is prepared to assist the police in the enquiry and that he apprehends, the police till wants to arrest him with ulterior motives.

3. When the application was first presented before me I had considerable doubt in my mind as to the power and jurisdiction of this Court to make the order prayed for. I was, however, referred to the very recent Pull Bench decision of the Lahore High Court in the case of Hidayat Ullah Khan V/s. The Crown A.I.R. (36) 1949 Lah. 77 : Pak. L. E. (1949) Lah. 65 F. B. in support of this application. That