MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises from a request for post-arrest bail by the petitioner, who is accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification while serving as a police official, registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, the delay in the registration of the First Information Report, and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, noting that he is no longer required for further investigation and that there is no risk of absconsion. Crucially, the Court determined that the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to bail, reasoning that continued incarceration would not serve the interests of the prosecution, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Does an offence under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when they are no longer required for further investigation and there is no risk of absconsion?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.18 dated 28-2-2005 registered under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with Police Station, Anti- Corruption Establishment Faisalabad.
2. Precisely, allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded a sum of Rs.10,000 as an illegal gratification from the complainant of the present case, to declare him innocent in the case F.I.R.
No.122 registered at Police Station, Gulberg Faisalabad, who paid him Rs.5,000 but thereafter, the petitioner join hands with other party.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case; the prosecution story is not probable; that there is delay of more than one year in lodging the F.I.R., which is not explained by the prosecution; and that the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and is no more required for further investigation of the case.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for grant of. b ail.
5. Heard, Record perused.
6. The petitioner is in the judicial lock-up and is no more required in the investigation. He is an official of the police department and there is no chance of his absconsion. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Keeping the petitioner in Jail for indefinite period of time will not serve/advance the case of prosecution.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.