YOUSAF IQBAL vs THE STATE
The petitioner, an employee of WAPDA, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under Section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, involving allegations of receiving illegal gratification. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the investigation initiated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment, which lacked jurisdiction, and the impact of the complainant's exoneration on the petitioner's entitlement to bail. The court observed that the Anti-Corruption Establishment lacked jurisdiction to register and investigate the case, leading to the transfer of the record to the Federal Investigation Agency. Furthermore, the complainant and other witnesses submitted affidavits exonerating the petitioner, asserting that the funds in question were for a detection bill rather than illegal gratification. Given the uncertainty regarding the timeline and outcome of the ongoing investigation by the Federal Investigation Agency, the court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail. The court granted the bail, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds, while reserving the right for the investigating agency to seek cancellation of bail at an appropriate time.
- Does the Anti-Corruption Establishment have jurisdiction to investigate a WAPDA employee for corruption?
- Can the complainant's affidavit exonerating the accused be considered for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a petitioner entitled to bail when the investigation by the competent agency is pending and the complainant has exonerated the accused?
- Section 161, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
ORDER
1. Petitioner Yousaf Iqbal seeks post-arrest bail in case registered vide F.I.R. No. 39 of 2000, dated 25- 8-2000 under sections 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5/2/47, P.C.A. At Police Station ACE, Sahiwal on the allegations that he had received a sum of Rs.12,000 as illegal gratification from one Muhammad Ashraf.
2. Admittedly the petitioner is an employee of WAPDA and Anti---Corruption Establishment had no jurisdiction to register and thereafter to investigate the case. In consequence of order dated 4-10- 2000 in Writ Petition No. 1000 of 2000. The record has been sent to Federal Investigating Agency for its investigation.
2. The complainant from whom it is alleged that the petitioner had received Rs.12,000 as illegal gratification has exonerated him from the allegation. He has stated that Rs.12,000 were paid to him as detection bill. Alongwith this affidavit of Muhammad Ashraf, Muhammad Arshad and Muhammad Tufail have also sworn affidavits exonerating the petitioner. It is not clear that as and when the investigation will be completed by the FIA and what will be the result of the investigation.
3. Therefore, I allow the petitioner bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
4. However, the F.I.A./I.O. May seek cancellation of bail at appropriate time, if so desired.
5. H.B.T./Y-8/L