MUHAMMAD AFZAL vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Afzal, who was charged under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly demanding and accepting a bribe to effect an inheritance mutation. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery of the alleged bribe money. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the marked currency notes were recovered from a third party, Bashir Ahmad, rather than the petitioner, and that the third party had submitted an affidavit claiming the money was for a legitimate business transaction. The Court emphasized that the petitioner was no longer required for investigation, had been incarcerated since March 2005, and that the alleged offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause. The key principle laid down is that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception, particularly when the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the accused is no longer required for investigation.
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the alleged bribe money is recovered from a third party rather than the accused?
- Does the grant of bail become a rule when the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Can bail be refused as a form of punishment before the conclusion of a trial?
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioner Muhammad Afzal, seeks post. arrest bail in case Bearing FIR No, 16/2005, dated 14.3.2005, under Sections 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with Section 161 PPC, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Establishment, Multan.
2. According to the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded Rs, 15,000/- as bribe from the petitioner for effecting inheritance mutation regarding the land of the complainant.
It is alleged that after negotiation Rs, 5,000/- 'as settled, which the complainant was to pay the petitioner for the attestation of the mutation. According to the FIR, raid was conducted by the Magistrate and the petitioner was arrested.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of raid, the currency notes were in fact recovered from one Bashir Ahmad, who was present in the room, who handed over Rs, 5,000/- and such recovery is not effected from the petitioner. It is further submitted that Bashir Ahmad has filed an affidavit, which is annexure "C" of this petition, in which it has been stated that this amount was in fact paid by the complainant to him for the purchase of buffalo from him. This statement has been made by him before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Multan, on 8.4.2005; that no one saw the complainant handing over the money to the petitioner; that no conversation was heard by the raiding party and that the petitioner is in the judicial lock up since 14.3.2005. Relies on 1995 M LD 766, 2003 P Cr. LJ 175 (Lahore) and 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1903.
4. Learned State Counsel submits that this is a case of prompt FIR; that the petitioner is duly nominated in the FIR and that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to the grant of bail. Further submits that the challan has been submitted in Court.
5. Heard. Record perused.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he received Rs, 5,000/- from the complainant.
However, when the raid was made this amount was not recovered from the petitioner but infact from one Bashir Ahmad, who was in that room. The said Bashir Ahmad has filed an affidavit to the effect that this amount was infact paid by the complaint. Such a statement has also been made by him before the learned Special Judge Anti-corruption, Multan. A case of further inquiry has been made out by the potitioner. He is no longer required by the police. He is behind the bars since 14.3.2005 and no useful purpose shall be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period. Bail cannot be refused as punishment and it will take a long time before his trial is finally concluded. The offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, thus entitling him to the grant of bail and in such like cases, grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereto is an exception. Respectfully reliance is placed on PLD 1995 SC-34. The petitioner is a Government servant and there is no likelihood of his absconding.
7. Under the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.