Ch. NADIR AHMAD and others vs THE STATE
This matter arises from a petition for pre-arrest bail in respect of FIR No. 420 dated 2-11-2000 registered under sections 380, 409, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Islampura, Lahore, concerning allegations of issuing bogus hunting licences and misappropriating public funds. The core legal question involves the sustainability of pre-arrest bail for civil servants facing allegations of corruption and forgery, particularly regarding the jurisdictional competence of local police versus the Anti-Corruption Establishment and the necessity of custodial interrogation for recoveries. The Lahore High Court held that since the petitioners had deposited the alleged misappropriated amount and joined the investigation, and noting that the matter ordinarily fell within the purview of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, the ad interim pre-arrest bail should be confirmed. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when an accused joins the investigation and deposits the disputed amount, and that physical custody is not mandatory for effecting recoveries where cooperation is evident.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be confirmed when the accused has deposited the allegedly misappropriated amount and joined the investigation?
- Does an inquiry involving civil servants ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Corruption Establishment rather than the local police?
- Is custodial interrogation and handcuffing strictly necessary for effecting recoveries when the accused is cooperative?
- Section 380, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in case F .1. R No .420, dated 2-11-2000, under sections 380/409/109, P. P.0 . registered at Police Station Islampura, Lahore, at the instance of Riaz Ahmed, with the allegation that the petitioners issued bogus Hunting Licences and received an amount of Rs,31,900 from different persons; the entries of these licences were not found in the record of the Department.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the case has been got registered by unconcerned person and also the same should have been registered with the Anti-Corruption Establishment and not with the local police. It has been further argued that the petitioners have joined the investigation and there is no allegation for misusing the concession of bail.
3. Conversely, the bail petition has been opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant and for the State on the ground that no mala fide has been alleged on the part of the complainant or the police officials; the offence falls under the prohibitory clause; the forged licences are yet to be recovered.
Heard. Record perused.
4. The petitioners have deposited the ,alleged misappropriated amount with the Department. As for the recovery of the bogus licences is concerned, there is no allegation for non-joining in the investigation and it is not necessary that the accused should be handcuffed for effecting the recovery. Now the case has been registered with the local police, ordinarily it should have been investigated by the Anti-Corruption Establishment as the petitioners are civil servants. In view of this fact, learned Law Officer is asked to direct the Investigating Officer to send the file -to Anti- Corruption Establishment for inquiry/investigation. The ad inerim bail already granted to the petitioners is hereby confirmed, subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy. Registrar (J) of this Court.
However, if there is at any stage allegation for misusing of bail is levelled against the petitioners for non-joining the investigation, the Investigating Officer any move for cancellation of the bail.