MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail petition filed by an accused-petitioner, a WAPDA employee, facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for allegedly accepting a bribe. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail given the nature of the offence and the potential punishment. The Court held that the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, carries a maximum punishment of three years, and since the trial court might impose a fine only, continued incarceration was unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioner's long service record, the lack of risk of abscondence, and the fact that the offence did not fall within the restrictive clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that for bail purposes, courts should consider the lesser punishment provided for the offence and the specific circumstances of the accused.
- Does the potential for a fine-only sentence in a corruption case justify the grant of bail?
- Does an offence punishable by three years imprisonment fall under the restrictive part of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should a court consider the lesser punishment provided for an offence when deciding a bail application?
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
SHAH JEHAN KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.--- Accused-petitioner Muhammad Ashraf facing prosecution in case F.I.R. No.1 dated 1-1-201.1 under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sections 161 and 109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station FIA Crime Circle, Peshawar was refused bail by the learned Special Judge Central, Anti-Corruption and Emigration, Khyber Pukhtoon Khwa, Peshawar vide his order dated 6-1-2011. Now he has approached this Court for his release on bail through the instant petition.
2. The allegation against the accused-petitioner who is serving as Lineman in WAPDA, is that on 1-1-2011 he while receiving Rs.25,000 from the complainant Sher Rehman as illegal gratification/bribe in order to protect him from heavy fine regarding his electricity Meter, was arrested red-handed by the raiding party of FIA Crime Circle, Peshawar under the supervision of Mr.Tariq Abbas Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State and have also perused the record.
4. Without going into deep merits of the prosecution case, suffice it to say, that the offence under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is punishable with three years imprisonment or fine. For disposal of a prayer for grant of bail, Courts are always taken into account the lesser punishment provided for the offence subject to its nature. In the instant case, there is possibility that the trial Court may punish him with fine only, therefore, keeping him behind the bars will serve no purpose to the prosecution.
5. The petitioner, who is a civil servant and has served the WAPDA for the last twenty years, with no allegation of corrupt practice. Though the petitioner was tide over while receiving Rs.25,000 as bribe but he has refused to confess and has given a counter-version exonerating himself from the charges. There is no possibility of abscondence of the petitioner in view of his prolonged service in WAPDA and he is no more required for investigation. The offence does not fall under the restrictive part of section 497, Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the lesser punishment in the shape of fine, I am inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.
6. This petition for bail is accepted and the accused-petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge Central Anti-Corruption and Emigration, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, Peshawar, who shall ensure that the sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.
7. Before parting with this order, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a month and if the prosecution succeeds in establishing guilt of the petitioner, he shall be awarded appropriate punishment.
8. Above are the reasons of my short order announced on 15-2-2011.
H.B.T./201/P Bail granted.