WAJID ALI/Accused vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused, a public servant, facing charges of misappropriation of government wheat bags and forgery of records under sections 409, 477-A, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given that the entire amount allegedly misappropriated by him had been deposited into the government treasury prior to or immediately following the registration of the First Information Report. The Court held that the accused was entitled to bail, noting that the investigation was complete, the challan had been submitted, and the accused was no longer required for police investigation. Furthermore, the Court distinguished the applicant's case from his co-accused, emphasizing that the deposit of the embezzled amount mitigated the grounds for continued detention. The key principle laid down is that where an accused has deposited the entire alleged embezzled amount and the prosecution's evidence is secured, there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty, warranting the grant of bail.
- Does the deposit of the entire allegedly embezzled amount by a public servant constitute sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail when the investigation is complete and the challan has been submitted to the court?
- Can an accused be granted bail if his case is distinguishable from co-accused who have not made restitution?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 477-A, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. ' The applicant/accused is facing trial in a offence under sections 409, 477-A, and 34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) Act-II of 1947, arising out of Crime No,14 of 2000 of ACE, Larkana.
2. ' The F.I.R. Of this case was lodged by Iqbal Ahmed Qureshi, Assistant Director ACE, Larkana on 16-2- 2000 at 1-30 p.m. Stating therein that during investigation of Crime No,11 of 2000 it transpired that government wheat bags 2952 valued at Rs,20,66,400 purchased at Wheat Procurement Centre, Naudero, Bhund Chowk and Lashari Centres of District Larkana during the season of 108-99 were missing. The payment was shown having been paid to different growers, who did not provide the wheat to Government as such the aforesaid amount was misappropriated by Food Inspector Wajid Ali Bhutto, Abdul Rahim Soomro and Ayaz Hussain who remained posted at the relevant centres. It is stated that they had forged the record intentionally and caused loss to the Government.
3. ' The police after registration of F.I.R. Took up investigation and after completing of the same has submitted challan in the concerned Court.
4. ' It is contended by Mr. Muhammad Ayaz Soomro learned counsel for the applicant that accused Wajid Ali remained posted at relevant centres from April, 1999 to June, 1999. The allegation against him are that in his tenure 79 wheat bags were short and the price of which comes to Rs,71,100. It is contended that amount of Rs,55,300 was deposited on 16-2-2000 vide challan No,123 before registration of the F.I.R. Of this case by the present applicant. The rest of the amount of Rs,15,800 is deposited on the next day i,e, 17-2-2000. It is submitted that the alleged total amount of misappropriation attributed to present accused has already been deposited and his case is on different footing than the remaining two accused Abdul Rahim and Ayaz Hussain. It is contended that the record is already with the prosecution which cannot be tampered_ The prosecution witnesses are the public servants and their statements have already been recorded by the police.
5. It is stated that case has already been challaned and the accused is no more required to police.
6. The reliance is placed to the cases of Shamraiz Khan v. State (2000 SCM R 157), Saeed Ahmed v.
7. State (1995 SCM R 170), Hussain Haqani v. State (2000 PCr.LJ 161), Raza Muhamamd Sial v. State (1988 SCM R 1223) and Mir Akhtar Khan Khattak v. State (PLD 1983 Pesh. 128).
8. ' Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio learned counsel for the State has conceded to the grant of bail in view of the case of Shamraiz Khan v. The State (2000 SCM R 157), wherein their lordships have granted bail in similar circumstances to the accused who had deposited the embezzled amount.
9. The police file reveals that the present accused deposited amount of Rs,55,300 vide challan No,123, dated 16-2-2000 and the remaining amount was deposited on next day. The applicant remained posted at the relevant centres for three months and the total bags allegedly missing during his tenure are 79 bags and the price of which comes to Rs,71,100. The said amount is already deposited by the present applicant/accused. The involvement of present applicant in the commission of offence is yet to be established by the prosecution when evidence is recorded. The documents and the relevant record is already with the police. The challan has been submitted in the concerned Court and the accused is no more required to police. His case is distinguishable and on different footing from the co-accused Abdul Rahim and Ayaz Hussain. The reference can be made to a case Shamraiz Khan v. State (supra) wherein their lordships had confirmed the interim pre-arrest earlier, as the amount embezzled was deposited with the bank, similar is the situation in this case. The accused has already deposited the amount allegedly misappropriated by him. The accused is a public servant and he is not likely to abscond.
10. ' In view of the said circumstances, at present there appear no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has been guilty of the offence with which he is charged. He is granted bail in the sum of Rs,five lacs and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Additional Registrar of this Court.
Cited by 2 cases
- Syed Salahuddin vs The State 2025 YLR 774
- ANJUM IQBAL VARSEY vs THE STATE Through F.I.A., Police Station Corporate 2011 YLR 893