MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs Captain (Retd.) ABDUL QAYYUM And Another
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner seeking the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 by the High Court. The respondent, an Executive Engineer, faced allegations of misappropriation of funds, tender irregularities, and record tampering, leading to a case registered under sections 468, 471, and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following an inquiry, the Assistant Director of Anti-Corruption found substance in only three allegations regarding tender document tampering, but concluded no bribery was established and recommended departmental action. The High Court consequently granted pre-arrest bail. The core legal question is whether pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court warrants interference by the Supreme Court based on such findings. The Supreme Court held that no case for interfering with the High Court's order was made out, noting also that the State did not challenge the order. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled when an anti-corruption inquiry recommends only departmental action?
- Does the absence of an appeal by the State against a pre-arrest bail order affect a private petitioner's application for bail cancellation?
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The petitioner in this petition for special leave to appeal seeks cancellation of pre-arrest bail which has been granted to respondent No.1 by the High Court.
2. Respondent No. l is an Executive Engineer in the Highway Division of the Provincial Government.
The petitioner filed a complaint against him with the Directorate of Anti-Corruption. In the complaint as many as 22 allegations were made against him. These allegations related to misappropriation of funds, irregularities in inviting and accepting tenders and tampering with the official record. On the basis of this complaint a case under sections 468, 471 and 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered by the said Directorate against respondent No.1. An Assistant Director Anti---Corruption held a detailed inquiry and found substance in only three allegations. These related to tampering with the tender documents. As it was not established that respondent No.1 had taken any money or bribe, the Assistant Director recommended that only departmental action be taken against him. On the basis of the findings of the Assistant Director Anti-Corruption the High Court allowed pre-arrest bail to respondent No.1.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have not been persuaded that any case for interfering with the order of the High Court has been made out. It is also to be noticed that the State has not cared to agitate against the order of the High Court. We would accordingly dismiss this petition.