MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE STATE
ORDER
Muhammad Iqbal petitioner through the instant petition seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.34 dated 4-5-2000, under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act No.II of 1947, Police Station, A.C.E., Multan.
2. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. is that he has misappropriated wheat bags belonging to the Food Department.
3. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in that there is unexplained delay of more than two years in lodging the F.I.R., which itself is sufficient ground for further inquiry into his guilt; that several teams have checked the stock of Bardana and found the same to be correct/intact and so his involvement in the case is based upon mala fide; that no recovery of any kind was made from him when he was with the Anti-Corruption Establishment; that he is behind the bars; and that he is previous non-convict. In support of bail plea, reliance has been placed upon the case of Raza Muhammad Sial v. The State 1988 SCMR 1223; Mirza Muhammad Zulfiqar and others v. The State and others 2000 SCMR 1072; Saeed Ahmad v. The State 1996 SCMR 1132 and Anwar Zada v. The State through FIA SBC Karachi 2001 PCr.LJ 730 Karachi.
4. On the other hand, the learned State Counsel assisted by Assistant Director (Legal), Anti-Corruption Establishment, Multan, has opposed the application on the ground that wheat bags (Bardana) belonging to the Food Department had been misappropriated by him; and that the offence under section 409, P.P.C. does fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of the available record.
6. The occurrence as shown in the F.I.R. pertains to the year 1998-1999. The report regarding the same was made on 4-5-2000. Thus, apparently it was with considerable delay. It is his plea that several teams have checked the stock and found to be correct/intact. In view of the same and particularly the fact that no recovery was effected from him, his case requires further inquiry into his guilt, so the same is covered under subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. He is behind the bars and stated to be previous non-convict. He merely for the reason that wheat bags (Bardana) of huge amount belonging to the Department have been misappropriated cannot be refused bail. In this regard reference can be made to the case of Wasi Haider v. The State 2002 MLD 1659.
7. I, therefore, in the above, circumstances of the case have found that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out. In this regard reliance is placed upon the case of Mirza Muhammad Zulfiqar and others v. The State and others 2000 SCMR 1072; Saeed Ahmad v. The State 1996 SCMR 1132 and Anwar Zada v. The State through FIA SBC, Karachi 2001 PCr.LJ 730 Karachi.
8. In this view of the matter, I accept this petition and admit him to bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Multan/trial Court.
H.B.T./M-1696/L Bail granted.