Kamran Attaullah and ano vs The State
The petitioners, serving as Deputy and Assistant Directors in the Federal Investigation Agency respectively, sought leave to appeal for pre-arrest bail after being refused by both the Special Judge Central and the High Court of Sindh in a case involving allegations of receiving gratification of 24 million rupees to facilitate a financial scam defrauding the Utility Stores Corporation through a fake certification. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of public servants facing serious allegations of corruption and abuse of authority to pre-arrest bail. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were prima facie connected to the offense through forensic data and witness statements, and reiterated that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to subvert or undermine the investigative process, which often requires arrest for effective prosecution. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail is an extraordinary remedy and mala fide on the part of the prosecution must be clearly established to suspend the usual course of law, which was absent in the present case. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined.
- Can an accused person be granted pre-arrest bail to subvert or undermine the investigative procedure and process?
- What is the primary justification required to suspend or divert the usual course of law through the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Are public servants facing allegations of receiving illegal gratification entitled to anticipatory bail when prima facie evidence connects them to the crime?
ORDER
QAZI MUHAMMAD AMIN AHMED, J. Declined both by the learned Special Judge Central-I Karachi as well as a learned judge-in-Chamber of the High Court of Sindh, petitioners, Deputy and Assistant Directors in the Federal Investigation Agency , respectively . seek leave of the Court for bail in anticipation to their arrest in a case registered with F.I.A./ACC Karachi; they are accused to have received gratification to the tune of rupees 24 millions from one Sheikh Muhammad Munawar arrayed as accused in a financial scam to subtly defraud Utility Stores Corporation to effect a massive sale transaction through a fake certification. During the inquiry , incriminatory statements of various witnesses were forensically confirmed from the computer CDR, and ledgers secured from the custody of co- accused Abdul Qadir Motion a front man in the transaction; it was on the basis of this comprehensive probe that the petitioners braced the impending prosecution.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. A detailed parallel story related by the petitioners notwithstanding, nonetheless, they were admittedly at the helm of affairs to call the shot and thus in a position to rescue the complainant from the troubled situation he was trapped; various pieces of evidence including forensic data, beyond susceptibility of human interference, unmistakably suggest a conduct perfidious to the call of their duty hence, prima facie, cognizable. It is by now well settled that the accused in a criminal case cannot be granted anticipatory bail to subvert or undermine investigative procedure/process that essentially include arrest in order to bring the statutory exercise to its logical end for effective and meaningful prosecution of the offence through collection of informa tion/evidence consequent upon arrest. Mala fide, manifestly intriguing upon the intended arrest, is the only justification to suspend or divert the usual course of law , a step most extraordinary by all means; it is not a case in hand. Petition fails. Leave declined.