1. Bashir Ahmad petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 21/04 dated 19.7.2004 u/S. 161 PPC read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 registered with Police Station Anti Corruption Lodhran.
2. 2.The allegations as contained in the FIR against the petitioner are that he has received Rs, 75000/- in installments for providing job to the complainant. Out of this amount he received Rs, 10,000/- in the office of X.E.N Canal Thingi, and further remaining amount paid in installment of Rs, 35000/-, Rs, 10,000/-, Rs, 5000/-, Rs, 10,000/- and Rs, 15000/- and finally Rs, 10,000/-. The entire amount was given in order to provide the employment to the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of five years in lodging the complaint to the authorities and no cogent explanation has been given for this delay and no date and time has been mentioned on which the payment was paid by the complainant; that the offences do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause. Further submits that he is behind the bars for the last 4 months.
3. 3.Learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition vehemently and submits that two other cases are pending against the petitioner regarding the corruption and in one case he has been convicted. Further submits that the petitioner was convicted in FIR No, 65/01 dated 26.12.2001 under Section 161 PPC read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 registered at Police Station ACE, Vehari and was convicted to 3 years.
4. 4.Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record perused.
5. 5.The allegations against the petitioner are that he received Rs, 75,000/- in installment for providing Job to the complainant. The alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place 5 years back and after long delay, this case has been registered against the present petitioner. No date and month and year has been mentioned regarding the alleged payment of Rs, 75,000/- alleged to be made to the present petitioner. No recovery has been made from him. The objection taken by the learned state counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to bail because he has already been convicted in FIR No, 65/01 dated 26.12.2001 under Section 161 PPC read with Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to three years is not sustainable as the learned counsel for the petitioner, at bar submits that an appeal has been filed against this conviction which is pending. As the appeal against conviction is still pending before the Learned Appellate Forum therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is a convicted person. Moundeor and others versus The State PLJ 1989 SC 01, Abdul Halim versus The State PLD 1986 Peshawar 92, and Bashir Ahmad Zafar versus The State NLR 1982 UC 380 are referred. A person can only be called a convict if a competent Court of law has convicted him and the same has been finally decided in appeal".
6. In the light of the above, the petitioner cannot be refused bail on account of conviction passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner cannot be kept behind the bars awaiting the final conclusion of his trial, which is not possible in near future. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping him behind the bars for such an indefinite period. Needless to add .that the bail cannot be refused as punishment. Respectfully reliance is placed on Ch. Abdul Malak vs. The State (PLD 1968 Supreme Court 349). There is no concept of punishment before the conviction. The offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause, therefore, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Tariq Bashir and 5 others versus. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34) grant of bail is a rule and refusal there to is an exception.
6. 6.In the light of what has been discussed about, while accepting this petition, the petitioner is allowed 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 learned trial Court.
7. 7.The observation made about are of tentative nature and the learned trial Court shall decide the case strictly on merits and in accordance with the evidence so produced by the parties without being influenced by the observations herein.