Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 50 in Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 71‑P of 1979, heard on 29th September, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 19‑9‑1979, in Cr. Misc. No. 644/79).

‑‑ S. 497‑Bail before arrest‑Points raised justifying grant of pre -arrest bail to petitioners‑Orders of Courts below not taking such aspects of case into consideration‑Orders, held, suffer from omission to apply relevant law in cases of such type‑Case being fit for inter ference by Supreme Court, petition converted into appeal and bail granted.‑[Appeal (criminal)].

Muhammad Masood Kausar, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Inayat Elahi, A.‑G. and Amir Zada Khan. A. A.‑G. (N.‑W.F.P.) for the State.

Date of hearing : 29th September, 1979.

The petitioners are involved in a case registered against them as per F. I. R. No. 4 dated 7th October 1979, at Police Station, Paharpur, under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947) and under section 409, P. P. C. for having constructed a drain in the area of the Town Committee, Paharpur against the requisite specifications. It is further alleged in the F. I. R. that the actual work was got done by the petitioners themselves though on paper one Ranjhoo was shown as its contractor. The petitioners applied for pre‑arrest bail but the same was refused by the learned Sessions Judge, on 26th July 1979 and by the Peshawar High Court on 19th September 1979, on the sole ground that the aforesaid contractor has given a statement in which he had admitted and disclosed that the work was got done through him on paper and that in fact the petitioners themselves were reaping the benefit of the said contract.

2. The petitioners have come up in a petition for leave to appeal against the same to this Court. The case was. put up on 24th September 1979 when a notice was issued to the State. It has come up today before us after notice. It has been argued that :‑

(a) that the F. I. R. does not contain the name of any first informant. This is deliberate for the purpose of escaping the ultimate liability for false prosecution. All that the F. I. R. discloses is that its sources were "reliable sources". This is not a proper and regular F. I. R. under section 154, Cr. P. C.

(b) that there are no details of the precise offence committed nor of the persons responsible for the same except the bare mention of the "Ahl Karan Town Committee".

(c) that the report of the A. C. E. referred to in the F. I. R. and read out in court again does not particularise as to what were the "specifications" and how the construction of the drain was in violation of those specifications.

(d) that Ranjhoo appears to be a disgruntled contractor who claimed that he had to receive dues from the Department, which are not being paid to him.

(e) that the work was completed long ago. On the spot the drain now stands demolished due to flood/rains, which means that there is no material evidence against the petitioners in particular and on the subject in hand in general.

(f) that Ranjhoo is an old contractor who has received various other contracts also. He, according to his own showing, has been receiving payments himself, and making payments to labour. Moreover, the work was given to him on regular tender basis by competent authorities and the petitioners cannot be involved in that affair. It was all regular transaction and there is nothing on record to prove it to be otherwise.

(g) that the case appears to be of personal and departmental intrigues and jealousies and has been put up in order to harass and ridicule the petitioners with an ulterior motive to disgrace them and get them handcuffed and not in the interest of justice.

3. The points raised are such which in our opinion justified the grant of pre‑arrest bail to the petitioners and the orders of the courts below which did not take these aspects of the case into consideration suffer from omission to apply the relevant law in cases of this type. Hence it is a fit case for interference by this Court.

4. The result is that we convert this petition into an appeal and accepting the same direct that the petitioners should be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 40,000 each with one surety for each of them in the like amount to the satisfaction of the 11aqa Magistrate, D. I. Khan.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.