Petitioner Muhammad Hassan seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 45/2010 dated 16.10.2010, under Section 161, PPC read with Section 5/2/47, PCA registered against him at Police Station ACE, Sahiwal, District Sahiwal.
2. The brief facts as narrated in the FIR recorded on the statement of the complainant Muhammad Shafique are that his brother, namely, Muhammad Siddique sold one acre of land against a consideiation of Rs, 7,00,000/- to him and when he contacted Muhammad Hassan Patwari Revenue Halqa 3/10-L, Tehsil Sahiwal for the mutation, he demanded Rs, 54,000/- as Government dues as also bribe.- The Government dues are too small, but the said Patwari has refused to enter mutation without bribe, which he did not want to give him.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the currency notes of Rs, 50,000/- bearing the marks of the Magistrate have not been recovered from the petitioner rather from another person, namely, James Masih. The offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., therefore, he is entitled for bail.
4. Learned ADPP has controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that James Masih is Chowkidar of the petitioner and he was found in the office of the Patwari. The case has been registered against the petitioner as well as the said James Masih, who is also behind the bar.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned ADPP and perused the record.
6. Admittedly, the recovery of marked currency notes of Rs, 50,000/- has not been affected from the petitioner rather from -another person, whose name is James Masih. It has been alleged by the prosecution that James Masih is an official of revenue department and attached with the petitioner as Chowkidar, therefore, recovery affected from him connects the petitioner with the commission of offence, as he was acting on behalf of the petitioner. But in support of this contention, learned ADPP has failed to produce any document showing James Masih as an official of the Revenue Department, which has made the petitioner's case that of a further inquiry. More- over, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and he is no more required by the police, therefore, he cannot be kept in jail for indefinite period as punishment.
7. In view of the above, the petitioner is entitled to bail, and this bail petition is accepted and the petitioner is admitted to bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/-(rupees one lac only) with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.