' MANZOOR AHMAD MALIK, J.---Imtiaz Ahmad petitioner seeks bail after arrest in case F.I.R. No,556 of 2009, dated 24-12-2009 offence under sections 161 and 162, P.P.C., Article 155-C of the Police Order, 2002 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Precisely allegation against the petitioner is that he while posted as Sub-Inspector after receiving illegal gratification conducted dishonest investigation of case F.I.R. No, 466 of 2009, dated 27-10-2009 offence miler sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Police Station Khatiala She ikaii
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of this petition contends that date and time of occurrence is not mentioned in the F.I.R.; that the case was registered initially by the local Police and thereafter the investigation was transferred to Anti-Corruption Establishment; that on 30-1- 2010 it was stated before the learned Special Judge Anti Corruption that the Anti-Corruption Establishment has not yet determined whether the petitioner received any illegal gratification but on the basis of evidence which was in existence on the said date they have declared the petitioner guilty; that this case was registered by the local Police and investigation of the case was also initially conducted by the said Police which is against the law; that the investigation conducted by the petitioner regarding which it is alleged that the petitioner received illegal gratification was approved by the DSP and on the basis of said investigation the challan has been submitted which is sub judice before the Court of law; that the investigation conducted by the petitioner has not been challenged before any higher authority within the Police hierarchy; that provisions of section 162, P.P.C. Are not attracted in the case; that recovery of cash allegedly effected from the petitioner is of no avail to the prosecution because it was effected by the local Police who had no authority to investigate the case; that it appears highly improbable that after such a long time the petitioner will lead to the recovery of cash amount; that the recovery of currency notes does not connect the petitioner with the crime because the application submitted by the complainant does not contain any denomination and numbers of currency notes; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last about four months and the offence alleged against him does not fall within the prohibitory claws- of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes this bail petition on the grounds that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. With a specific role of receiving illegal gratification which was subsequently corroborated by recovery of currency notes and that there is no or previous enmity of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner.
4. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. Allegation against the petitioner is that he conducted dishonest investigation of case F.I.R. No,466 of 2009, dated 27-10-2009 offence under sections 302, 148 and 149, P.P.C. Police Station Khatiala Sheikan. A specific question was asked from the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and the counsel for the complainant whether any application against the said dishonest investigation was submitted for re-investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that no application was submitted for re-investigation, however, the complainant has filed a private complaint. Whether the alleged recovery connects the petitioner with the commission of crime will certainly be determined by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. I will not comment much upon this aspect of the case lest it may prejudice the case of either party before the learned trial Court. The offence is outside the 'prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure. Grant of bail in such cases is a rule and its refusal is exception. Petitioner is behind the bars for the last about four months. Therefore, respectfully following the dictum of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled "Tariq Bashir v. The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34) this application is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
5. Before parting with this order, it is clarified that the observations made in this order are tentative in nature and relevant only fog the disposal of mis petition and the learned trial Court will not be influenced by them in any manner whatsoever.