MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN vs THE STATE and anothers
This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Riaz Khan, who was charged along with co-accused in F.I.R. No. 396 dated 9-8-2011 registered under sections 409, 419, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad, for allegedly leaking entry test question papers of NUST. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his specific role in a heinous economic and educational crime falling within the prohibitory clause. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was directly nominated with a specific role, the offence under section 409 fell within the prohibitory clause where refusal of bail is the rule, and the petitioner's case was distinguishable from co-accused who were released on bail. The court laid down the principle that in cases involving heinous offences affecting societal and educational integrity and causing massive financial and academic losses, and where prima facie connection exists through tentative assessment, bail ought not to be granted.
- Whether an accused nominated in an F.I.R. for leaking university entry test question papers is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the refusal of bail as a general rule?
- Can the principle of consistency be invoked when the role of the accused seeking bail is distinguishable from co-accused who have been released on bail?
- Is deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 419, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 3, Universities and Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Malpractices Act 1950
ORDER
' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, C.J.---Petitioner Muhammad Riaz Khan son of Muhammad Akram seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,396 dated 9-8-2011, registered under sections 409/419/109, P.P.C. Read with 5(2)47 of P.C.A. At Police. Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad.
2. The Prosecution story as emerges from the available record is that the instant F.I.R. Was registered at the instance of complainant Saleem Dawood, Registrar NUST, Islamabad, who in his written application alleged that the University conducted Entry Test on 16/17-7-2011, in different cities for admission in courses of different subjects, in which approximately 22000 students participated. The question papers were sent to the Examination Centers under sealed boxes and bundles. On 18th July, the University came to know that question Papers of Engineering were available with certain persons before examination and same were sold after receiving handsome amounts from the candidates. The University administration constituted a Board consisting of Dr. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan, Dr. Safdar Ali Shah, Engineer Zahar Khan and Engineer Saleem Dawood to look into the matter and during inquiry, it revealed that D.P.A. Altaf Hussain (co- accused) and Naib Qasid Muhammad Riaz Khan (Present Petitioner), who were performing their duties in Printing Hall while committing criminal breach of trust had caused the Question Papers out in connivance with others and sold the same after receiving big amounts. The petitioner admitted his guilt before the Inquiry Committee, hence upon the application of the complainant the instant F.I.R. Was registered and the petitioner along with other co-accused was booked in the instant case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner after reading the contents of F.I.R. Contends that admittedly the petitioner was Naib Qasid and being so it cannot be expected that such a crime should have been committed by him; that nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner, rather pay of petitioner was shown as recovered amount; that co-accused persons have been released on bail, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the same concession under principle of consistency; that the petitioner was involved in this case on the statement of co-accused, which has no value in the eye of law; that section 3 of Universities and Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Malpractices Act, 1950 is attracted, according to which all the offences under the said Act are bailable; that there is a considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R. To support his contention, learned counsel has relied upon 2002 PCr.LJ 168. By dint of above submissions, it is prayed that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioner is directly nominated in the case; that the role of the petitioner is distinguishable with that of the co-accused who have been released on bail; that it is an offence which affected the entire society and devalued the status of University; that co-accused Altaf is still absconder; that due to act of the petitioner as well as co-accused the University had suffered a loss of more than four crores.
5. Heard arguments anxiously and studied the record minutely.
6. The petitioner is a specifically nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role. The petitioner was booked in this case after proper inquiry. The offence under section 409, P.P.C. Falls within the prohibitory clause of section 409, Criminal P.C. In such-like cases, refusal is a rule and acceptance is an exception. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any special feature of the case which may bring this case in any of the exceptions. The petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. He along with other co-accused not only caused loss of more than rupees four crores to the University but the same also caused mental torture and agony for the students and their parents as well. Further due to cancellation of Entry Test, valuable educational year of students has lapsed and there is no alternate for the same. The repute of University has also affected due to act of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to suggest that the involvement of the petitioner is product of mala fide or on the part of the complainant or police. As regards the contention that other co-accused have been released on bail is concerned, from the record it manifests that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable with that of the case of other co- accused who have been already released on bail.
7. As far as University Act, as stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is applicable to the Province of the Punjab, Even otherwise, the learned counsel has failed to satisfy that the same Act still holds the field. Under the law deeper appreciation of evidence is not warranted at bail stage and only bird's eye view thereof is to be made from tentative assessment of material available on record, the petitioner is very well-connected with the commission of offence. The prosecution is equipped with sufficient incriminating material to connect the petitioner with the commission of heinous offence.
8. The net result that flows from the above discussion is that the petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.