ALTAF HUSSAIN vs THE STATE
The petitioner sought confirmation of pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 19 of 2004 registered under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan, concerning allegations of stealing Zakat Committee cheques and unauthorized withdrawal of funds. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail given his non-nomination in the F.I.R. and exoneration in the departmental inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioner was not nominated in the F.I.R., was declared innocent during the departmental inquiry conducted by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, and had already deposited the disputed amount of Rs. 40,000, his case fell within the scope of further inquiry. The pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner was confirmed subject to furnishing fresh bail bonds.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused is not nominated in the F.I.R. and no specific role is attributed?
- Does exoneration of an accused in a departmental inquiry make out a case for further inquiry under criminal law?
- Is the deposit of the allegedly misappropriated amount a relevant factor for confirming pre-arrest bail?
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.-- Petitioner has sought his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,19 of 2004 dated 21-2-2004 registered under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with section 409, P.P.C. 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 along with 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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. Furthermore, 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 (Judi.) of this Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- Syed HADI vs NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU through Chairman Sub- 2018 P Cr. L J 231
- MUHAMMAD SOHAIL Versus State 2018 YLRN 94
- RAZA MUHAMMAD Versus State 2017 PCrLJN 47