MASOOD AHMAD Alias MAQSOOD AHMAD vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the refusal of bail to the petitioner, who faces charges under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for demanding illegal gratification. The prosecution alleges the petitioner, an employee of the Lahore Development Authority, demanded a bribe to extend a construction deadline, leading to a trap operation where he was apprehended with marked currency. Following his initial arrest, the petitioner allegedly resisted and escaped with the assistance of others, resulting in additional charges under Sections 224, 225, 186, 332, 353, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner sought bail after the High Court previously directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within three months, granting liberty to reapply if the deadline was missed. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances and the High Court's prior order. Finding that the lower courts exercised their discretion legally and properly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no sufficient grounds existed to interfere with the refusal of bail.
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with the discretion of lower courts in bail matters when the discretion has been exercised legally and properly?
- Can a petitioner be granted bail when they have allegedly resisted arrest and escaped custody during a trap operation?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 224, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 225, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 186, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 332, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 506, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-- A case has been registered against the petitioner under section 161, P.P.C.
2. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for demanding rupees one hundred from the mother of the complainant, Arif Hussain, as illegal gratification.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the mother of Arif Hussain was not able to complete the construction of her building on a plot in Gulshan-e-Ravi Scheme, Lahore, within the stipulated period. The petitioner being an employee of the Lahore Development Authority was approached by the complainant for extension of the in completing the construction, but he demanded Rs.100 as illegal gratification for this purpose. The complainant, however, did not want to pay any bribe and he, therefore, reported the matter to the Anti-Corruption Establishment. A raiding party, headed by a Magistrate, was constituted to trap the petitioner when he was allegedly receiving the illegal gratification. He was, accordingly, trapped and currency notes of Rs.100 were recovered from his pocket, where after he was arrested. But he put up a resistance with a view to rescuing himself from the clutches of the raiding party. In this effort, he was helped by some employees of the Lahore Development Authority and members of the Union. They assaulted the members of the raiding party and gave them fist blows and succeeded in taking away the petitioner but ultimately he was again arrested. A separate case under sections 224, 225, 186, 332, 353 and 506, P.P.C. Was registered for the said offence.
4. The bail application moved by the petitioner having been refused by the Special Judge and the High Court on to occasions he has now approached this Court for bail.
5. In the last order passed on 31-10-1984 by the High Court, a direction was issued to 'the trial Court to conclude the trial within three months failing which the petitioner was given liberty to apply again for bail to the High Court.
6. We have heard Mr. Q. M. Salim, learned Advocate for the petitioner but taking into account ail the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the terms of the last order passed by the High Court on the petitioner's bail application we find that no grounds exist for interfering with the discretion exercised by the Court below which has been exercised quite legally and properly.
7. This petition, therefore fails, and is dismissed hereby.