ALTAF HUSSAIN vs STATE
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, in connection with FIR No. 19/2004 registered at Police Station A.C.E. Multan for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the investigation. The Court observed that the petitioner was not nominated in the initial FIR and that no specific role was attributed to him. Furthermore, a departmental inquiry conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment had previously declared the petitioner innocent, and the petitioner had already deposited the disputed amount of Rs. 40,000/-. Consequently, the Court held that the case against the petitioner warranted further inquiry. The Court confirmed the pre-arrest bail, establishing the principle that where an accused is not nominated in the FIR, no specific role is attributed, and a departmental inquiry has cleared the accused, the case qualifies for further inquiry, thereby justifying the grant or confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
- Does the absence of an accused's name in the FIR constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Can a departmental inquiry report clearing an accused be considered in a pre-arrest bail application?
- Is the deposit of the disputed amount a relevant factor in confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
Petitioner has sought his pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 19/2004 dated 21.2.2004 registered u/S. 5(2)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 409 PPC at Police Station A.C.E. Multan.
2. Precisely the allegation against the petitioner as per prosecution story is that during the internal audit of Zakat Committee, Sultanpur Tehsil Multan it was found that Safdar Hussain/petitioner alongwith field clerk had stolen a cheque of Zakat Committee Sher Shah and withdrew Rs. 40,000/- from the bank. Further alleged that they had also stolen the cheque book of Zakat Committee Kachoor and was issuing fake cheques to different persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case; that the petitioner is not nominated. in the FIR but later on he was implicated in consequence of collusion between the police and the complainant. Further submits that no role has been attributed to the petitioner.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Petitioner is admittedly not nominated in the FIR and no role has been attributed to him. During the course of departmental inquiry conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Chairman Safdar Hussain, Abdul Ghafoor joint member and Ahmad Khan field clerk were declared innocent which makes the case that of further inquiry. Further more, the petitioner has deposited Rs.
40,000/-. For what has been discussed above pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 6.3.2006 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing his fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
1,00,000/- (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judl,) of this Court.