ZAHOOR AHMED vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from F.I.R. No. 93, registered at Police Station City, Kamalia, involving allegations of illegal gratification under sections 161 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the alleged offences. The Court observed that the F.I.R. was lodged with a significant delay of three years, and the matter did not involve a raid or recovery. Furthermore, the petitioner was not the investigating officer in the relevant criminal case, and no recovery was made from his possession. The Court noted that one of the alleged offences is bailable, and the others do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the challan had been submitted, and the petitioner's status as a public servant minimized the risk of absconsion. Consequently, the Court held that the case required further inquiry into the petitioner's guilt and granted bail.
- Does a case involving an alleged private payment of illegal gratification without a raid and recovery entitle an accused to bail?
- Do offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 necessarily fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the status of an accused as a public servant a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of absconsion for bail purposes?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---Through this petition Zahoor Ahmed petitioner has sought post- arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,93, registered at Police Station, City, Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh on 15-3-2005 in respect of offences under sections 161/420, P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record I have noticed that the F.I.R. In this case had been lodged with a delay of about three years. The case in hand is not a case of a raid and recovery but is one of an alleged private payment of illegal gratification.
The record shows that the petitioner was not the Investigating Officer of the relevant criminal case and he was not himself in any position to declare any accused person involved in that case as innocent. Nothing had been recovered from the petitioner's possession during the investigation of this case. One of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner is bailable and the other offences do not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C.
After completion of the investigation a challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court. The petitioner happens to be a public servant, and, thus, there is little likelihood of his absconscion in case of admission to bail.
3. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD NADEEM JAVED KHAN vs The STATE and another 2014 MLD 407
- UMER HAYAT Versus State 2007 YLR 345