MUHAMMAD SHAFA vs THE STATE and another
This post-arrest bail petition arose from a case registered against the petitioner, a government servant, under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, following a raid where he was allegedly caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs. 3,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the complainant had submitted a no-objection affidavit and the alleged offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court granted bail, holding that since the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, bail cannot be withheld as a punishment. Furthermore, as a government servant, there was no likelihood of the petitioner absconding, and the court relied on established precedent to conclude that bail is a right in non-prohibitory cases unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Whether bail can be withheld as a matter of punishment where the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the status of an accused as a government servant mitigate the risk of abscondance for the purposes of granting bail?
- What is the legal effect of a complainant filing a no-objection affidavit during post-arrest bail proceedings in a non-compoundable corruption case?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Shafa petitioner has sought post-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No. 19 of 2007, dated 1-9-2007 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment Sahiwal, in respect of offences under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Precise allegation against the petitioner is that he had demanded bribe of Rs.3,000 from the complainant namely Munir Ahmad Shahid, who was not ready to accommodate him, therefore, on his move a raid was conducted and the petitioner was caught red-handed and the tainted amount was recovered from his possession.
3. In support of this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause; that the complainant had filed an affidavit before the learned trial Court that he could be having no objection if the bail is granted to the petitioner, and that the petitioner being a Government servant there is no likelihood of the abscondance of the petitioner.
4. Conversely, the learned State Counsel has strenuously opposed the bail application contending that the petitioner was caught red-handed and the tainted amount was recovered from him; and that the offence committed by the petitioner is not compoundable.
5. After hearing the arguments of both the sides, I have concluded that offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment. I have further observed that the petitioner being a Government servant there is no likelihood to abscond. Therefore, while A pinning my faith on the case of Tariq Bashir v.
The State (PLD 1995 SC 34) I am inclined to accept this application. Consequently, the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Cited by 1 case
- Agha KHURRAM ALI Versus State 2017 YLRN 77