MOHSIN IHSAN vs The STATE

YAHYA AFRIDI, J.---Mohsin Ihsan son of Ihsan-ud-Din, petitioner, seeks his post arrest bail in case FIR No,136, dated 25.02.2015 for offence chargeable under sections 409/419/ 420/468/471/109 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C."), read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ("Act"), 30 NADRA Ordinance, registered in Police Station FIA/ACC, Peshawar ("FIR").

The petitioner has also filed Cr. M. No,237-P/2016 wherein he is seeking insertion of section 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 ("F. Act") in the instant bail petition. The worthy Standing Counsel present in Court is put to notice, and he has no objection. The application is allowed and section 14, F. Act is made a part of the bail application.

Cr. M. No,246-P/2016 is for the correction of the date of registration of FIR. The State counsel is present in Court and has no objection to the present relief. This application is also allowed and the date of registration of FIR is read to be 20.10.2016 instead of 25.02.2015.

2. Now to the facts of the case, according to the contents of the FIR, a complaint was filed by Imtiaz Ali, Inspector FIA KPK, upon which an enquiry bearing No,04/2015 was conducted and it was found that Mohsin Ihsan, while serving as Deputy Assistant Director NADRA along with co-accused, illegally processed CNICs of non-nationals by introducing them as families members of other genuine Pakistani citizen. Based thereon FIR was registered against the accused-petitioner.

3. Valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and the available record of the case thoroughly considered.

4. Lest this Court passes any finding on merits that may prejudice the case of the parties during the trial, suffice it to state that the petitioner has been charged for the offences which do not fall within the prohibitory clause and the Investigation is not complete and would require further time. This being the position, the criminal culpability and role of the petitioner would best be adjudged at the trial by the trial Court. Hence, he is entitled to the concession of bail.

5. Before parting, this Court finds it is necessary to remind the trial Court that the observations rendered by the High Court while disposing of bail applications are not to be considered during the trial of the accused. In this regard the august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Shuaib Mehmood Butt v.

Iftekharul Had (1996 SCMR 1854), has rendered clear guidance, which is to the effect that:- "However we would like to point out in no certain terms that the observations made by the High Court in the orders granting bail and by us in this order are confined to tentative assessment made for the purpose of disposal of bail applications and not intended to influence the mind of the trial Court, which is free to appraise the evidence strictly according to its merits and the law of the time of disposal of the case, which of course it is needless to say, is the function of the trial Court".

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this bail application is accepted and Mohsin Ihsan son of Ihsan-ud-Din, accused-petitioner is allowed bail if he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,500,000/- (Rupees five lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate, who shall see that the sureties are local and men of means. However, in case the petitioner delays the investigation or the departmental inquiry in any manner, whosoever, the by this Court may be recalled by moving the Sessions.