Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1230/B of 1984, decided on 25th November 1984.

‑‑‑S.497 (1)‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), 5.161‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5 (2)‑‑Bail‑‑Offence not falling within prohibitory clause of S.497 (1), Cr.P.C.‑‑Alleged bribe money not recovered from accused and do further recovery was to be effected‑‑Accused was behind bars for considerable time‑‑Challan had not been submitted in Court for trial‑‑Accused being a public servant, no apprehension of his abscondence existed‑‑Case of accused was to be placed before Provincial Anti‑Corruption Committee for decision as to whether accused was to be dealt with departmentally or tried in a Court of law‑‑Court refusing bail for reason that matter being serious, was to be dealt with strong hands‑‑General ground of seriousness of matter, held, should not prevail against accused not charged with offence falling within prohibitory clause of 5.497 (1), Cr.P.C.‑‑Accused was, therefore, entitled to bail in circumstances.

Haji Wali Muhammad v. The State 1968 P Cr. L J 192 ref.

M. Soltan Alam for Petitioners.

Akbar Farid Khan for the State.

Sultan petitioner is a Canal Beldar while Irshad petitioner is a Constable. They are alleged to have demanded Rs.400 from the complainant for showing favour to his companion in a case pertaining to the theft of canal wood. The complainant paid them Rs.100 each and promised to pay the balance afterwards. He reported the matter to the Anti‑Corruption Department who organised a raid supervised by Syed Iftikhar Hussain Bokhari Magistrate. The complainant delivered two currency notes of Rs.100 each to Sultan who on seeing the Magistrate and the raiding party threw the same into the canal water. The notes taken out from the canal and their numbers tallied with the numbers recorded before they were passed on to Sultan petitioner.

2. The petitioners had applied for bail to the learned Special Judge, Multan and vide his order dated 30‑10‑1984 dismissed their application. The reason which prevailed with the learned Special Judge for declining bail to the petitioners was as follows:

"It is an open secret, that a number of persons cut the wood belonging to the Forest Department or to the Irrigation Department by paying illegal gratification to some of the officials of these Departments. Cutting of wood owned by the Government can be stopped by viewing the matter seriously and with strong hands."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order of the learned Special Judge is arbitrary based upon irrelevant considera tions and further that the alleged bribe money was not recovered from the possession of any of the petitioners and further that they are behind the bars for a considerable period and that the challan has not been submitted in the Court for trial.

4. In Haji Wali Muhammad v. The State 1968 P Cr. L J 192, the Supreme Court allowed bail to an accused involved in a gold smuggling case who had been declined bail by the lower Court on general grounds e.g., "the fact that smuggling was a heinous offence which was gaining acceleration and which needed to be checked with vigilance and firmness." The Supreme Court did not approve of these grounds and observed that the general ground of seriousness of menace of smuggling etc., should not have been allowed to prevail against the accused not charged, with the offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 (1). Cr.P.C.

5. Neither of the offences with which the petitioners are charges: is punishable with death, imprisonment for life or 10 years' imprisonment. There was thus no bar to the grant of bail. No further recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. The case of the petitioners will have to be placed before the Anti‑Corruption Committee for decision as to whether they are to be dealt with departmentally or tried in a Court of law. Being public servants, there is no apprehension of their abscondence. They are, therefore, considered entitled to bail. I order accordingly. They shall be released on bail provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of A.C. Vehari.

M.Z.M. Bail allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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