MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus State
This criminal miscellaneous matter arises from a petition for post-arrest bail in F.I.R. No. 20 dated 12-11-2005 registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at Police Station ACE, Sahiwal. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, a Patwari accused of accepting illegal gratification without depositing mutation fees, is entitled to post-arrest bail considering the period already spent in incarceration and the progress of the case. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, observing that the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause, the mutations in question have since been attested, the petitioner has remained behind bars for over two months without trial, and bail cannot be withheld by way of punishment. The court laid down the principle that prolonged incarceration without trial for offenses outside the prohibitory degree warrants the grant of bail, as bail is not a punishment.
- Whether an accused charged under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 is entitled to bail when the offense does not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- Can bail be refused to an accused person by way of punishment during pre-trial incarceration?
- Does the attestation of mutations subsequent to the registration of a corruption case affect the entitlement of an accused to post-arrest bail?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J .--As per contents of F.I.R. No.20, dated 12-11-2005 under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, at Police Station ACE, Sahiwal, Ahmad complainant filed an application stating that he is owner of some land. He got Mutations Nos.220, 221 and 222 entered. The petitioner, a Patwari, received Rs.25,000, but the fee was not deposited and as such the mutations could not be taken up. A case was accordingly registered. The petitioner was arrested on 29-6-2006. His bail application has been dismissed by a learned Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Multan, on 5-7-2006 and a second application was rejected on 23-8-2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory degree and his client is behind the bars since the last more than two months. The case has been falsely got registered. Learned counsel for the complainant says that his client has instructed him to state that he will be having no objection to the grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application.
3.I have gone through the available records. Upon my query, the learned counsel for the State informs that the said mutations have .since been taken up and attested. Now, I find that the learned Special Judge has observed in his order, dated 5-7-2006 that the petitioner has been arrested only on 29-6-2006 and it is rather early to set him at liberty. Going by the said reasoning, more than two months have gone by and the petitioner is behind the bars without any trial. The bail is not to be refused by way of punishment. The criminal miscellaneous is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
H.B.T./M-226/L Bail granted.