MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL RIFFAT Versus State
ORDER
SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.--- The petitioners, Muhammad Shakeel Riffat (Crl. Misc. No.6988-B/2016) and Sakhawat Hussain Khan (Crl. Misc. No.7172- B/2016) seek post-arrest bail in case FIR No.5/2016, dated 11.5.2016, under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered at Police Station ACE Circle, district Khushab, on the complaint of Rana Muhammad Fayyaz (complainant). Both the applications are compositely decided hereby.
2. Precisely, the allegation against the petitioners, as per FIR No.5/2016 (supra) is, that Muhammad Shakeel Riffat (petitioner), the district officer buildings, received bribes from Rana Muhammad Fayyaz (complainant), a contractor in building department, Khushab, so as to clear/pass his bills of the projects, that he completed from time to time; he received illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- on 19.4.2016, followed by another amount of Rs.10,000/- from him, so as to release the security-amount to him; for another project, he demanded another amount of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant, who, being offended of the bribery, moved a written application with the prayer that a raid should be conducted on the corrupt official and he be taken into custody red-handed.
3. On the complainant's application, learned Sessions Judge Khushab deputed Azhar Mehmood, learned Judicial Magistrate, Khushab to conduct raid and see as to what would happen there; learned magistrate put his initials on four currency notes of Rs,5000/- each and gave them back to the complainant; he recorded statement of the complainant in this regard before conducting the raid; the complainant went to the office of Muhammad Shakeel Riffat (petitioner) and gave him the tainted currency notes before passing a signal to the learned magistrate, who rushed onto the said office, where complainant told him that Muhammad Shakeel Riffat (petitioner) had handed over the bribe-amount to Sakhawat Hussain Khan (petitioner), a head clerk, standing nearby, who concealed it somewhere in the office, whereon this place was combed by the raiding party, which led to recovery of the tainted amount from a locked Almirah of Sakhawat Hussain Khan (petitioner). Both the petitioners were arrested then and there and taken to the police station, wherefrom they were despatched to judicial lock-up on 16.5.2016.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is observed that the complainant allegedly fulfilled all previous demands of Muhammad Shakeel Riffat (petitioner) cooperatively and at no stage felt upset by the demands allegedly made by the accused from time to time. The last episode of paying Rs.20,000/- to Muhammad Shakeel Riffat (petitioner) bears a few loopholes in it, as learned magistrate did not witness the tainted money changing hands between the receiver and giver thereof, nor did he overhear any conversation between them on the said occasion. It looks strange that the complainant could not inform the magistrate that the head clerk-accused had locked bribe-amount in an Almirah placed there. The magistrate must have entered the office of the accused in a jiffy, once signal was passed onto him by the complainant, hence, it looked difficult to understand that Sakhawat Hussain Khan (petitioner) had received and concealed the said amount in the meanwhile. As to his explanation Muhammad Shakeel Riffat (petitioner) stated before the magistrate that he was innocent, having not received any bribes and that it was a deliberate act on the part of the complainant to malign him.
5. Sakhawat Hussain Khan (petitioner), however, contended that he had been given the said amount by the district officer, which he placed under the files in his Almirah. It renders the situation a bit dubious, as the head clerk (Sakhawat Hussain Khan) could only do it all, that which he did, at a lightening pace, when raiding magistrate almost stood at the threshold of the district officer's office. It may be found from the visual site-plan that the head clerk's office was situated in the south of the district officer's office with an intervening gallery in between. The locked Almirah, wherein tainted money was hidden, was placed in the head clerk's office. Who knows that tainted currency notes might not have passed through the hands of the accused- petitioner at all. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the amount itself, as it has been considered by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, in his order should not weigh against grant of bail to the petitioners. He has relied on Ijaz Akhtar v. The State (1978 SCMR 64) and Haji Wali Muhammad v. State (1968 PCr.LJ 192) in this regard. It is admitted on both the sides that the offence, the petitioners are confronted with, are not covered by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C., as punishment provided for the offence under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is seven years and under section 161, P.P.C., it is three years. The petitioners are public servants and, thus, there was little likelihood that they would abscond, if admitted to bail. The investigation of this case has already been finalized, hence, continued custody of the petitioners is not required any longer. It is not to be denied that the concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of pre-mature punishment.
6. For what has been discussed above, the case against the petitioners called for further probe into their guilt within the scope of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. These applications (Crl. Misc. Nos.6988-13/ 2016 and 7172-B/2016 are accepted and they are admitted to post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (two lacs) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
WA/M-169/L Bail granted.