ORDER CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Shafaqat Ali through the instant petition has sought for post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.25 registered under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act No. II of 1947 with Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment, Lahore on 19-5-2010.
2. Briefly the prosecution case against him as per the F.I.R. Is that he in order to give 'Fard' to the complainant demanded illegal gratification Rs.12,000 from him, who paid him an amount of Rs.2000 and obtain the requisite 'Fard' and promised to pay the remaining amount. Later on, he did not pay him the said amount despite his repeated demands and instead informed about the same to the Director of the said Establishment.
Consequently a raid was conducted upon him and he was apprehended receiving the amount of Rs.10,000 from him. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he had intended to receive the above said amount as 'Ujrat' for issuing him the copies of the relevant record of rights and it is permissible as per the rules and he so, has not received any amount from him (complainant) as illegal gratification warranting the above indicated action against him and he in respect thereof has recorded two rapats in Roznamcha Waqiati, on 13-5-2010 and 17-5-2010 and in such scenario, it cannot be said that he has committed the offence complained of and as such, the case against him calls for further inquiry into his guilt.
4. As against the same, learned DPG has opposed the petition on the ground that he in fact has received the above said amount as illegal gratification from the complainant for the above said purpose and later on he has mancovred the above mentioned rapats; and that the story in these rapats is not believable.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and perused the available record.
6. There is annexed to this petition, the copy of Rapat No.312 in his Roznamcha Waqiati, recorded on 13-5-2010 by him (petitioner). In the same, it has been mentioned that Muhammad Yousaf and others through Mushtaq Ahmad (complainant) have obtained copies of the Record of Rights
(hard) from him against 'Ujrat' Rs.150 per copy and the total amount in this respect comes to Rs.12,000.
7. There is also another Rapat No.316, recorded by him on 17-5-2010, mentioning the same event and demanding the remaining amount Rs. 10,000 from him (complainant) and the respectables of the village promised to pay the same to him in case, he does not give it to him.
8. This, thus, shows that these rapats were recorded in the official record by him prior to the registration of the case or raid upon him. I am, thus, of the considered view that due to such fact alone on the record, his case definitely falls within the purview of subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. Calling for further inquiry into his guilt.
9. The fact also remains that the alleged offence does not attract the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In the case of Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State (PLD 1995 SC 34), it has been held that grant of bail in such like case is a rule and refusal an exception. There is no exceptional circumstance to warrant refusal of the relief to him.
10. He is stated to be behind the bars since 21-5-2010. I, therefore, accept this petition and admit him to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court/Special Judge Anti Corruption, Lahore.