MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE BASIT vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by an accused charged with obtaining employment as a Drawing Master in the Education Department through the submission of allegedly bogus degrees and certificates. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the nature of the offences charged, specifically Sections 409 and 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the remaining offences fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the applicability of the more serious offences, noting that the Deputy Prosecutor General conceded that Sections 409 and 467 were not attracted. Furthermore, the Court observed that the remaining offences did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Emphasizing that the prosecution's case relied on documentary evidence already in its possession, the Court granted bail, establishing the principle that in cases where offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
- Whether offences not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to the grant of bail as a rule?
- Does the reliance of a prosecution case on documentary evidence already in possession of the state support the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the applicability of the more serious sections of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is doubtful or conceded by the prosecution?
- Section 409, 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 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
The petitioner seeks, bail after arrest in case of FIR No, 27/2011 dated 06.07.2011 offence under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, PPC read with Section 5(2)47 of PCA, registered at Police Station Anti Corruption Establishment, Bahawalnagar.
2. As per brief allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner got the job of Drawing Master in Education Department on account of bogus degrees and certificates. Hence, the above mentioned FIR.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the above mentioned case due to departmental rivalry; that from the bare reading of the contents of FIR the offences under Sections 409 and 467, PPC are not made out in the instant case whereas all the remaining offences do not fall within the ' ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. that the petitioner was not associated at the time of verification of his documents, therefore, he could not establish his innocence and genuineness of the documents in question; that the complainant nominated as many as 10 accused in the above mentioned FIR but all the co-accused of the petitioner were exonerated during the departmental inquiry; that similarly during the inquiry held by Anti-Corruption Establishment 7 co-accused of the petitioner were declared innocent and as such the case of the petitioner is of further inquiry; that the prosecution case rests on the documentary evidence which is already in possession of the prosecution and there are no chances of tampering with the same, therefore, the petitioner may be granted post arrest bail.
4. The learned DPG has opposed this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is named in the FIR; that the petitioner got his appointment on the basis of bogus documents and he has drawn salary to the tune of Rs, 1,25,150/- from the department; that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of post arrest bail. Any how, the learned DPG has frankly conceded that offences under Sections 467 and 409, PPC are not attracted in this case.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner served in the Education Department for as many as' 15 years and he has been made victim of the departmental rivalry. Any how without commenting on the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I have noted that the complainant nominated as many as 10 accused in the above mentioned FIR but during the inquiry held by Anti-Corruption Establishment Bahawalnagar, no criminal action was proposed against 7 co-accused of the petitioner and only departmental inquiry/action was recommended against them, whereas, during departmental inquiry, all co-accused of the petitioner have been declared innocent. It is evident from the contents of the FIR that there was no allegation of entrustment of any property to the petitioner and similarly no allegation of preparation of any valuable security was levelled against the petitioner in the. FIR, therefore, attraction of ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 467, PPC in the instant case calls for further inquiry. The learned DPG has frankly conceded that offences under Sections 467 and 409, PPC are not made out in this case from bare reading of the FIR. All the remaining offences mentioned in the FIR do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. The grant of bail in such like cases is a rule, while refusal is an exception. The learned DPG has further conceded on instructions that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case and as such no exceptional ground has been pointed by the learned DPG to refuse bail to the petitioner. The prosecution case entirely rests upon the documentary evidence which is already in possession of the prosecution and there are no chances of tampering with the same and as such the petitioner is entitled to the post arrest bail.
Reliance is placed on the case of Saeed Ahnzed vs. The State (1996 SCM R 1132).
7. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to furnishing his bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. It is, however, clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and shall cause no prejudice to the case of either party at the time of decision of other issues involved in the present case or at the time of final adjudication of the case before the learned trial Court.