ABID SHAHZAD vs STATE and another
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, a public servant, who was arrested during a raid by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) for allegedly accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the arrest and the nature of the offences charged. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting that the prosecution's case lacked evidence that the raiding party overheard the conversation between the petitioner and the complainant, which brought the case within the purview of further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the Court observed that the offences charged did not fall within the prohibitory clause of the relevant bail provisions, and the trial had not progressed since the submission of the challan. The key principle laid down is that where offences do not attract the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception, particularly when trial proceedings are delayed.
- Does the absence of evidence that a raiding party overheard the conversation between the complainant and the accused bring a case within the purview of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the grant of bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the lack of progress in trial proceedings after the submission of a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 2, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 47, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
This is an application for bail after attest on behalf of Abid Shehzad (petitioner) in case FIR No, 377, dated 03.11.2017, under Section 161, PPC read with 5/2-47, PCA, registered with Police Station FIA, District Multan.
2. Succinctly stated, the case of the prose cution as it gleans from the crime report is to the effect that the petitioner received an amount of Rs, 5,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant in order to get him cleared from a criminal case; that at the time of payment of Rs, 5,000/- the FIA officials arrested him red-handedly through a raid.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that he is innocent; that the offences applied in the FIR do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; that in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception; that the petitioner is a public servant, hence there is no apprehension of his abscondment. With these submissions, teamed counsel prayed for the grant of post arrest bail.
4. The learned Law Officer has opposed the grant of bail and argued that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the crime report; that he was arrested during raid and that too in the thick of occurrence, while receiving Rs, 5,000/- as illegal gratification; that the case of the petitioner is of exceptional nature, which renders him disentitled from the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard; record perused.
6. It evinces from the perusal of the record that the petitioner stands implicated in the instant case with the allegation of having received an amount of Rs, 5,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification. He was arrested in the thick moments of receipt of an amount of Rs, 5,000/- as illegal gratification, which was also recovered from him. In the above backdrop, it is observed that even as per story incorporated in the FIR, none of the raiding party heard the ongoing conversion between the petitioner and complainant. This aspect of the matter itself is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the purview of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as the consideration for which the amount was received by the petitioner can best be determined after the ultimate appraisal of proposed prosecution evidence. Even otherwise, the offences applied in the FIR do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like case rule is bail and not jail.
7. The petitioner , who is a public servant stands arrested in the instant case since 03.11.2017 and despite the submission of report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., no progress has yet been made in the trial. All the facts mentioned above cumulatively make the petitioner entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
8. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing of bail bond to the tune of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.