' SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.---This is the 3rd application filed by the petitioner before this Court. 1st one bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,13189-B of 2010 was withdrawn on 23-11-2009. The 2nd petition on the subject bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No,15990-B of 2009 was dismissed on merits in terms of order dated 26-1-2010.
2. By means of instant petition Muhammad Anwar petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,36 of 2009, dated 13-8-2009, offence under sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 477-A, 109, P.P.C., read with section 5/2/47, PCA, lodged at Police Station F.I.A., Faisalabad.
3. Facts of the case already stand mentioned in. Criminal Miscellaneous No,15990-B of 2009, therefore I avoid to repeat the same here.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset was questioned that what is the fresh ground available with him to agitate as earlier petition of the petitioner has already been dismissed on merits. While replying learned counsel has submitted that the main accused Ashraf Supervisor has already been admitted to bail by the learned trial court. Learned counsel argued that role of the petitioner if compared to his co-accused Ashraf Supervisor is not only at par rather of lesser magnitude. Learned counsel further stated that amount, subject-matter of the case, was transferred by the bank officials, however, they were admitted to pre-arrest bail by the learned trial court. Learned counsel also emphasized that evidence against the petitioner is in the shape of documents which is in the exclusive possession of the prosecution and if the petitioner is admitted to bail there is no apprehension of his tempering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest i.e, 13-8-2009 and almost one year has elapsed without any progress in trial. Learned counsel has lastly argued that the petitioner took charge in the year 2006, whereas the alleged embezzlement pertains to the year 2000, therefore, case against the petitioner is nothing but mala tide on the part of the investigating agency.
5. Contrarily learned Deputy Attorney-General for Pakistan has opposed this bail petition mainly on the ground that petitioner's post-arrest has already been dismissed on merits by this Court and no fresh ground is available with him It is also argued that petitioner being the main accused is not entitled to the relief granted to his co-accused. On Court's query learned Deputy Attorney General has frankly conceded that there is no progress in the trial.
6. Arguments advanced pro and contra have been heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has apprised the Court that co-accused of the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf Supervisor having been assigned similar has already been admitted to bail by the learned trial court. I may also mention here that role of the petitioner if compared with that of his, co-accused Muhammad Ashraf is of lesser magnitude. I also find much weight in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that evidence against the petitioner is in the shape of documents which is in the exclusive possession of the prosecution and if the petitioner is admitted to bail there is no apprehension of his tampering with the prosecution evidence. Humble reliance in this regard is placed on the ratio decidendi of august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1995 SCM R 170).
8. There is also an admitted fact that the petitioner took the charge in the year 2006, whereas, the alleged embezzlement pertains to the year 2000. I am not inclined to comment upon the contention of learned counsel that the petitioner has been involved in the case when he even had not taken the charge of his post lest it may prejudice the case of either party at trial. However, I may add here that the petitioner is a government official and if he is admitted to bail, there is no possibility of his absconsion. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of Firdaus Ahmad Khan v. The State (2004 M LD 208).
9. Moreover, to ascertain the contention of learned counsel that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year without any progress in trial, a report was called for from the learned trial court.
Requisite report from the learned trial court has been received vide letter No,172.SCRFSD/2010, dated 29-6-2010; wherein it is submitted that the prosecution has taken considerable time to prepare more than 40 challans in 130 fake transactions. It further depicts in the report that the charge in c the case has not been framed as yet. Even otherwise, the petitioner cannot be placed at the helm of prosecution for indefinite period. There is no cavil to this proposition that till the pronouncement of conviction every accused is presumed to be innocent and any innocent person cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period without any progress in trial. Moreover, basic law is bail not jail.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I am persuaded to accept this petition as a consequence whereof the petitioner is admitted to bail after arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,5,00,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.