Agha KHURRAM ALI Versus State

ORDER

ANWAR HUSSAIN, J .---By way of this Bail Application, the Applicant/ Accused is seeking Post-arrest Bail, after rejection of his Bail Application vide Order dated 15.05.2016, passed by Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Hyderabad, in Crime No. 02 of 2016, under sections 161, 34, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) Act-II of 1947 of P.S. ACE District Badin.

2. The allegations against the Applicant is that he being Accountant of District Council, Badin, demanded bribe of Rs.7000/- from the Complainant namely Wazir Ali, who was working as 'Work Mistry' in District Council, for signing his difference bill and on his several requests the Applicant accepted Rs.2000/- at the spot in presence of Clerk Ahmed Gopang on 6.4.2016 and demanded the remaining amount of Rs.5000 to be paid on 26.4.2016.

3. Learned Counsel for the Applicant/ Accused contended that the case against the Applicant is false as he is not signing Authority of the bills and there is no proof except oral version of the Complainant for payment of Rs.2000/-. He further contended that the raiding party did not hear the conversation between the Complainant and Accused and they also did not witness the transaction between the Complainant and the Accused, therefore, the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he has prayed for grant of bail to the Applicant. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon 2013 PCr.LJ 1051, 2000 PCr.LJ 1591, 2008 MLD 250 and 1996 SCMR 181.

4. Learned D.D.P.P. opposed the grant of bail to the Applicant as the tainted money was recovered from the Applicant.

5. I have heard the Counsel for the Applicant/Accused as well as learned D.D.P.P. for the State.

6. Admittedly nothing has been shown that the raiding party has seen the Complainant giving the tainted amount to the Applicant nor the raiding party heard their conversation in respect of alleged demand of gratification.

7. The offence allegedly committed by the Applicant/Accused does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like matters the bail cannot be withheld as a matter of punishment. The Applicant / Accused being public servant is not likely to abscond, therefore, keeping in view the case law relied upon by the Counsel for Applicant, the Applicant / Accused is admitted to Post-arrest Bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lac) and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

8. The above observations are tentative in nature and shall not prejudice the case of either side before the Trial Court.

JK/K-19/Sindh Application allowed.