MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus State

ORDER

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J .---Through this petition Muhammad Ilyas petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.36 registered at Police Station, Directorate of Anti-Corruption Establishment, Punjab, Lahore on 23-4-1996 in respect of offences under sections 161/420/409, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Earlier on the petitioner had approached the Court of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Gujranwala for the same relief but his application in that regard was dismissed on 19-4-2005. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has straightaway been noticed by me that the offences under sections 161 and 420, P.P.C. are bailable. Admittedly the petitioner is not a public servant and, thus, the petitioner's alleged connection with the offences under section 409, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is indirect at best. A perusal of the record of investigation of this case shows that according to the prosecution the petitioner had received 269 gunny bags which he had allegedly misappropriated and in order to compensate for the same he had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,14,325 which was subsequently dishonoured. I have repeatedly required, the learned counsel for the State and the officer of -the Anti-Corruption Establishment appearing before this Court to point out the relevant material which confirms the fact that 269 gunny bags had been given to the petitioner by the department but they have remained unable to refer to any particular document in that respect. As regards the cheque in issue suffice it to observe that admittedly the said cheque had not been issued in favour of the relevant department or in favour of any official of the relevant department and that the said cheque had been issued in favour of "self". In these circumstances issuance of the said cheque by the petitioner and its connection with the allegation levelled against him is a matter which calls for further probe at this stage. A perusal of the F.I.R. shows that the petitioner has not been named in the main narrative of the F.I.R. and no allegation whatsoever has been levelled against him therein. It appears that the petitioner had been implicated in this case during an inquiry preceding registration of the F.I.R. but even in that inquiry the role allegedly played by the petitioner in the entire transaction had prima facie failed to travel beyond mere sketchy allegations. In these circumstances the assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding mala fide implication of the petitioner in the case in hand has been found by me to be an assertion which may not be without any foundation or substance. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and a challan has also reached the learned trial Court and, thus, physical custody of the petitioner is not required by the investigating agency at the present juncture.

3. For what has been discussed above this petition is accepted and the ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 16-2-2006 is hereby confirmed subject to furnishing of a fresh bail bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within a period of two A weeks from today.

H.B.T./M-104/L Bail confirmed.