Mir AKHTAR KHAN KHATTAK vs THE STATE
These criminal miscellaneous applications arose out of orders passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Peshawar, denying bail to the petitioner in cases registered under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, a public servant, was involved in the embezzlement and misappropriation of a substantial amount of public money. The High Court considered whether the magnitude of the misappropriated amount and the statutory prohibition under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 justified withholding bail. Granting bail, the High Court held that the large amount involved is not by itself a ground to refuse bail, especially when the investigation is complete, tampering with evidence is unlikely, and trial commencement would take considerable time. The Court laid down that bail should not be withheld as punishment, and facts must not be artificially stretched to fit within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based purely on the maximum theoretical sentence.
- Whether the mere fact that a large sum of public money is involved in an alleged embezzlement is sufficient ground by itself to refuse bail?
- Can bail be withheld as a measure of punishment when the investigation is complete and the trial is likely to take considerable time?
- Whether the court should look at the maximum statutory sentence or the punishment likely to be ultimately awarded when determining the applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. By this order, I propose to dispose of Cr. Misc. No. 351/82 and Cr. Misc. No. 352/82 arising out of two separate orders of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Peshawar pertaining to case FIR No. 16 dated 18-12-1981 and F.I.R. No. 3, dated 17-2-1982 registered against the petitioner under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5 (2) of the Preven--tion of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Arguments remained confined to identical question in both the petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the record and contended that no doubt there had been some slackness on the part of the petitioner in depositing the amount at a proper time due to rush of work, it is yet to be determined whether he was directly responsible for embazzlement and misappropriation of the public money in question. He also produced letter No. D (ADA) 765-B/3182-85, dated 1-6-1982 and stated that even the Managing Director has already approached the Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar informing him that as the departmental action against the petitioner is in progress he may not pursue the criminal cases registered against the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the State from the opposite argued that the petitioner is involved in misappropriation and embazzlement of large amount of public money and direct evidence is available in that connection against him. He, however, admitted that the investigation is complete and there is no likelihood of tampering with the relevant record by the petitioner at this stage.
5. No doubt the amount involved is sufficiently large but this fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail particularly when the investigation is complete and commencement of trial is likely to take considerable time as it happens in such like cases. It would serve no useful purpose if the petitioner is kept behind the bar for indefinite period being a public servant because as al rule bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.
6. So far as the question of prohibition contained in sub-clause (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C. Is concerned the Court is not supposed to keep in vie only the maximum sentence provided under the relevant law but shall, while taking into consideration, the facts of a particular case, consider the punish--ment which is likely to be ultimately awarded. As a rule facts of a case for the purpose of refusing bail should not be stretched so as to put the matter within the prohibition contained is sub-clause (1).Of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. For the reasons stated above, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in each case to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate.
8. S. A. H. Bail al/owed.
Cited by 12 cases
- MUHAMMAD HANIF S. KALIAand others vs THE STATE 2010 YLR 1822
- ISRARUDDIN vs THE STATE 2006 MLD 143
- ISSRAR UDDIN vs STATE PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Peshawar) 265
- UMAR DIN LODHI vs THE STATE 2002 YLR 2764
- MUHAMMAD ZAHIR SHAH vs THE STATE 2002 P Cr. L J 683
- CHUTTAL KHAN vs THE STATE 2001 P Cr. L J 166
- HAMEEDULLAH and anothers vs THE STATE 1999 MLD 1055
- MAJEED AHMED vs THE STATE 1996 MLD 1650
- MOHAMMAD SALEEMUL SHAFI vs THE STATE K.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 195
- MUHAMMAD SALIMUL SHAFI vs THE STATE 1993 P Cr. L J 32
- MUHAMMAD SALIMUL SHAFI vs THE STATE K.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 93
- RAFIQ vs THE STATE 1989 P Cr. L J 143