Qazi FIDA-UR-REHMAN vs The STATE and another
The petitioner, serving as a District Food Controller, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 409 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, regarding the alleged embezzlement and purchase of substandard wheat causing loss to the government exchequer. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence collected during investigation. The Peshawar High Court held that the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry to determine the petitioner's responsibility at trial, and noting that the accused was a government official with no likelihood of absconding, accepted the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where the analyst report shows wheat is fit for human consumption and the matter requires further inquiry into the official's responsibility, post-arrest bail ought to be granted.
- Whether the alleged embezzlement and purchase of substandard wheat by a public servant warrants post-arrest bail when the public analyst report declares the food fit for consumption?
- Does a case fall within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code when the responsibility of the accused government official requires determination at trial?
- Is a government official entitled to bail on the ground that there is no likelihood of absconding?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
HAIDER ALI KHAN, J.--- Petitioner Qazi Fida ur Rehman seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No,01 dated 18.3.2016 under sections 409/420, P.P.C. Read with 5(2), P.C. Act at Police Station ACE, Bannu.
2. Arguments heard and record gone through.
3. The accused is serving as District Food Controller at Bannu who was arrested vide FIR mentioned above, mainly on the report of senior auditor which reads as: "It is declared that 450 MT wheat (450000 KGs x 32.50 per KG)= costing Rs,1,46,25000/- have been embezzled and the DFC concerned is responsible."
It is also alleged in the FIR that he was instrumental in purchasing substandard wheat and thereby caused loss of Rs,1,46,25000/- to the Government exchequer.
4. The learned counsel appearing for accused vehemently denied the allegations and stated that as regard to the first charge of purchasing substandard wheat, same was sent to the Government Public Analysts, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, who denied the allegation and the sample of wheat were found to be of normal quality. The detail is given below:- ' "I have analysed the said sample and declare the results of my analysis to be as follow: Taste Normal Colour NormalSmell Normal Foreign Matter 2.8 % Foreign Food Grains 2.5 % Damaged Grains 6.5 % Insect Damaged Grains1.7 % Sound Grains 89.0 % Moisture 10.4 % ' Opinion
1. The sample conforms to the standards prescribed in the Pure food rules 1965.
2. The sample is not, injurious to health
3. The sample is fit for human consumption
4. The sample should be utilized without further delay."
5. According to the arguments that huge purchase was made in view of the impending operation and IDPs crises and the Government Storage facilities were not enough and some of the wheat was stored in private places like Flour Mills etc,
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State contended that another FIR has been lodged against the same accused on which he has obtained bail from the Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Peshawar.
7. In view of the above submissions and perusal of the record divulges that the case in hand falls within the ambit of further inquiry and it will be seen at the trial as to whether the accused is responsible for the wrong doings attributed to him in the auditor report. As the accused is Government official, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconder.
8. For the reasons discussed herein above, this, bail petition is accepted and the accused/petitioner is released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000/- (five lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Aquila/Judicial Magistrate/MOD concerned.
Cited by 2 cases
- ALI MUHAMMAD vs The STATE 2019 MLD 117
- SALAH UD DIN Versus State 2018 PCrLJN 165