MUHAMMMAD ADNAN ZIA vs THE STATE and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail filed in relation to F.I.R. No. 15 of 2010 registered under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with sections 5(2) and 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core allegation against the petitioner, a government servant, was that in connivance with co-accused contractors, he prepared bogus bills and made fictitious payments, causing a monetary loss of Rs. 25,03,737 to the government. The Lahore High Court examined the record and noted that the petitioner was found involved by an inquiry team and was subjected to penalties in departmental proceedings, which were partially maintained on appeal. The Court held that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary relief that cannot be extended to a government servant accused of heinous offences involving the misuse of authority and misappropriation of the public exchequer. Consequently, the Court recalled the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the petitioner, establishing that public officials facing serious corruption charges are generally not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted to a government servant accused of causing financial loss to the public exchequer through bogus billing?
- Does a departmental penalty and subsequent dismissal of an appeal impact the entitlement to pre-arrest bail in criminal proceedings?
- Is pre-arrest bail an extraordinary relief that should be withheld in heinous offences involving the misuse of public authority?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 467, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---The petitioner seeks his bail before arrest in case F.I.R. No,15 of 2010 dated 28-4-2010, under sections Nos.420/467/468/471, P.P.C., read with sections 5(2)/47 P.C.A., registered with Police Station ACE, Gujranwala Region.
2. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner in connivance with other co- accused caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs,25,03,737.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is innocent. He has not committed any offence. There is absolutely no case against the petitioner as there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner was exonerated in departmental inquiry. The F.I.R. Has been lodged with aim of causing insult and humiliation to the petitioner, therefore, ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner be confirmed.
4. Conversely, learned DPG assisted by Ijaz Akbar Matti, Deputy Director (Technical) ACE, Gujranwala, has vehemently opposed this bail application and has contended that the petitioner was not exonerated in the inquiry, rather he was punished. The petitioner filed an appeal but the sentence remains intact. Bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief which could not be extended to the petitioner, therefore, ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner be withdrawn.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record reveals that the instant case was lodged against the petitioner on receipt of a complaint. The investigation of the case was entrusted to a Inquiry Team who inspected the site and took into possession the relevant record. According to the report of Inquiry Team, the petitioner/accused in connivance with Contractors caused a great monitory loss to the Government. In departmental inquiry vide order dated 12-2-2010, the petitioner was awarded minor penalty of reduction in pay scale by five stages. The petitioner filed an appeal which was partially allowed. However, the sentence was reduced in pay scale by three stages. The charge against the petitioner is that during the month of October, 2007, he along with other co-accused prepared bogus bill and made bogus payment of huge amount by preparing fictitious estimate/work order.
The charges levelled against the petitioner are of heinous nature. The petitioner is a Government servant and custodian of public Exchequer, who has misused his authority. Bail before arrest is an extra ordinary relief which could not be extended in such like offences. Therefore, ad-interim pre- arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order, dated 15-10-2010 is hereby re-called.