MUHAMMAD KRAM Versus THE STATE

ORDER

Criminal Miscellaneous No. l of 1999

Dispensation sought for is allowed Disposed of.

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5367-B of 1999

2. Muhammad Ikram petitioner is an accused person in case F.I.R., No.91 registered at Police Station Directorate of Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore on 15-9-1998 for offences under sections 161/165-A, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R., is that he had offered and paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 to the principal accused of this case namely Muhammad Saeed Akhtar to facilitate impersonation of a candidate sitting for an examination held by the Punjab Public Service Commission. The petitioner was arrested in connection with this case on 28-4-1999. Subsequently, his successive applications for post-arrest bail were dismissed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Lahore vide order, dated 3-6-1999 and 11-9-1999 respectively. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed that the petitioner was initially not implicated as an accused person in the F.I.R., and the narration of the F.I.R., shows that the complainant had complained against only Muhammad Saeed Akhtar co-accused and had recommended action to be taken against him alone. Subsequently, the petitioner had also been implicated in the present case on the basis of an alleged statement made by him before the Anti -Corruption Establishment in connection with an investigation being conducted in another case F.I.R., No.64 of 1998 registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore. The petitioner has, however, denied making the alleged incriminatory statement and has maintained that the said statement had been fabricated so as to falsely .implicate the petitioner in this case. The principal accused in this case namely Muhammad Saeed Akhtar has already been admitted to post-arrest bail by the learned Trial Court vide order, dated 6-11-1998. Invocation of the provisions of section 165-A, P.P.C., against the petitioner itself shows that the petitioner is alleged to have abetted the said principal accused. It would, therefore, be only fair that the petitioner should also be treated in the same fashion as the person allegedly abetted by him. The offences allegedly committed by the petitioner do not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The challan in this case has already been submitted and, therefore, continued custody of the petitioner is not likely to serve any beneficial purpose at this stage. It is admitted at all hands that the petitioner has already been dismissed from his service with the Punjab Public Service Commission and because of this development any possibility of repetition of the offence by the petitioner after his admission to bail has not remained a relevant consideration in this context.

4. For what has been discussed above the case against the petitioner calls for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, 1 Cr.P.C. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 100,000 (rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

N.H.Q./M-1293/L

Bail allowed,