MUKHTAR MASIH ANJUM vs THE STATE
This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, who was charged under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The allegations involved the unauthorized sale of trees, misappropriation of funds regarding school furniture, and failure to deposit lease money into the government treasury. The petitioner contended that these allegations were identical to those previously adjudicated by the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had reinstated him after finding the department failed to prove the charges. The core legal question was whether, given the prior exoneration by the Service Tribunal and the lack of fresh evidence collected by the police, the petitioner was entitled to bail. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, noting the absence of evidence connecting him to the alleged offences and the mala fide nature of the prosecution. The Court reaffirmed the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction and that bail is appropriate where allegations require further proof.
- Whether an accused is entitled to bail when the allegations against him were previously found unproven by a Service Tribunal?
- Does the lack of evidence collected by the police regarding specific allegations justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Is a person entitled to bail when the prosecution appears to be motivated by mala fide intent?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 9 of 2001, dated 15-2-2001, under section 409, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered at Police Station, A.C.E., Rahimyar Khan.
2. The above F.I.R. against the petitioner has been registered on the complaint of Shah Muhammad, SST, on the allegation that the petitioner has sold 40/50 trees without the permission of the Education Department and caused damage to the Government exchequer and got prepared substandard furniture for Rs,4,000/5,000 and misappropriated rest of the amount. It is further alleged that two Acres land of the school had been given on lease but the lease money was not deposited in the treasury.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the allegation levelled in the F.I.R. the petitioner, was proceeded under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules I- and he was terminated from his service and order of termination was challenged by the petitioner before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore through an Appeal No,1716 of 1998 and the said Tribunal vide its judgment, dated 21-7-1999, set aside the order of termination of the petitioner and he was reinstated. He further contended that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were the same on which he was removed from service. He argued that the petitions filed an application against Shah Muhammad, S.I.P. the complainant and an inquiry was conducted against him and he as a counter blast, has involved the petitioner in three different cases.
4. The grant of bail to the petitioner, has been opposed vehemently, by the learned State counsel. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
5. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has been reinstated by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, as the department could not prove the allegations' against him. No evidence has been collected by the Police against the petitioner to involve him in the commission of offence. The allegations against the petitioner, in the F.I.R. required determination by recording the prosecution evidence, therefore, without the establishment of the allegations against the petitioner, he cannot be considered as an accused person. It is settled proposition of law that every person shall be deemed to be innocent unless conviction by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, sufficient grounds to believe the mala fide involvement of the petitioner in the commission of offence.
6. For the foregoing reasons and without prejudice the merits of the case, this criminal miscellaneous is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Ilaqa/Duty Magistrate concerned.