IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, C.J.---Petitioner Ameen Saqib seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 396 dated 9-8-2011, under sections 409/419/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2)47 of P.C.A., registered at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad. It is pertinent to mention here that the offences under sections 419/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2)47 of P.C.A. Were later added.
2. Plea of the post-arrest bail of the petitioner did not find favour with the learned Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi, who dismissed bail application to his extent vide order dated 14-9-2011. Hence this petition.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he joined his co-accused in receiving heavy amounts by committing criminal breach of trust by misappropriation, purchasing and selling copies of the question booklets of engineering department, kept secret for entry test in NUST University, Inquiry Board constituted for the purpose, held the petitioner guilty of abetment, thereafter, the petitioner surrenderedRs,80,000 with NUST University. Hence the instant F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently stressed that as the bail after arrest of co- accused namely Waqar Ahmed, Fiaz, Abad Ali, Zahid and Ahsan Ali has been allowed by the Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi vide order dated 14-9-2011, therefore, the petitioner having role at par is also entitled to the concession of bail under the rule of parity; that the petitioner has no nexus with the entry test branch rather, he is a Stenographer in Human Resources Branch in NUST University; that offences under sections 409 and 419, P.P.C. Do not attract to the case of the petitioner, because he is neither Invigilator, Examiner or Head Examiner nor he appeared in the entry test: examination .On anyone's behalf; that there is a delay of about 22 days in lodging the F.I.R.; that the petitioner has remained in illegal custody of the University Administration for 4/5 days; that even remaining on physical remand for 5/6 days nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession; that on the one hand the petitioner has been implicated in the instant case and on the other hand he has been terminated from service within a short span of three days after the registration of F.I.R., hence he has been subjected to double jeopardy; that as per the [University and Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education] Malpractices Act, 1950 the maximum punishment provided for the offence is only one year and is bailable; that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last two months and twelve days; that the investigation is complete and the person of the petitioner is no more required for further investigation; that the petitioner, having a very good previous record, has rendered 15 years' service in the department; that the petitioner is previous non-convict, hence he is entitled to the concession of bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the bail contending that the role of the petitioner is distinguishable with that of the co-accused who have been granted post-arrest bail; that the petitioner purchased the said secret booklets from co- accused Saeed and sold the same to one Nadeem Ahmed, as such, offence under section 409, P.P.C. Fully attracts to the case of the petitioner; that the University has suffered loss of a huge amount of rupee three crores clue to the conduct of the petitioner and his co-accused; that it is an offence which affected the entire society and devalued the status of University; that the petitioner, before the Inquiry Board, has himself got recorded his extrajudicial confession; that the petitioner, during the course of investigation, has submitted affidavit in his own handwriting regarding his confession; that criminal and departmental proceedings can be initiated separately and simultaneously; that the proceedings of Inquiry Board caused the delay of lodging the F.I.R.; that the Act ibid referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner was not for the purpose of entry tests, rather the same was for the annual papers of University and BISE.
6. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that only tentative assessment is required at bail stage and deeper appreciation is not warranted under the law; that the petitioner has failed to point out any mala fide or on the part of the police to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case; that the maximum punishment provided for the offence is imprisonment for life, hence falls within the ambit of prohibitory clause; that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R., with specific role; that challan has been submitted in the Court and the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. To fortify his contentions he has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Yaqub v. The State (1998 PCr.LJ 633 [Federal Shariat Court], Muhammad Musa v. The State and 2 others (1999 PCr.LJ 1260 [Lahore] and Muhammad Boota v. The State (2005 YLR 1339 [Lahore]).
7. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Standing Counsel heard, Record perused.
8. From the surface of record it appears that the petitioner is nominated in the F.I.R. And specific allegation of corruption has been levelled against him. The criminal case in hand has been registered on the written application of Engineer, Salim Daud, Registrar, NUST University after finding the petitioner and co-accused involved in this case. Moreover, sections 409, P.P.C. And 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are non-bailable. The offences fall within the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The prosecution witnesses are still standing by their statements made before the police under section 161, Cr.P.C. Incriminating the petitioner with the commission of alleged offences. The petitioner has failed to show any mala fide or ulterior motive on the part of the prosecution for his false implication in the instant case. The case of the petitioner is distinguishable with that of the case of other co-accused who have already been granted bail by the learned trial Court. The petitioner has made twice extrajudicial confession, once before the Inquiry Board constituted by the University and surrendered an amount ofRs, 80,000 with the University and secondly, before the police by submitting affidavit in his own handwriting and signature. It can, therefore, be safely inferred that prima facie reasonable grounds do exist to believe that the petitioner is involved in an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or for an imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and, as such, he has no case for bail at this stage.
9. It has transpired during the course of investigation that the petitioner along with his co-accused has been found to indulge in purchasing and selling the secret question booklets of the NUST University and in this way not only caused a huge financial, loss of rupees three crores to the University but has also impaired the repute and prestige of the Institution. From all over Pakistan thousands of candidates/students have suffered on account of the conduct of the petitioner and his co-accused. Therefore, the alleged crime can safely be considered to be a crime against the whole society which has caused great lose not only to the University Administration but thousands of candidates/students all over the country and has shaken the confidence of the students over the University which had been enjoying high prestige amongst the Institutions in the country.
Moreover, in such-like cases the courts should not take lenient view in the matter as the virus of said offence is spreading like a cancer in the society which requires to be curbed with iron hands in order to create an atmosphere of fair and healthy competition amongst the students/candidates.
Granting bail to-such-like persons would amount to encourage the heinous crimes in the society.
Taking the same in view, I am not inclined to grant the post-arrest bail to the petitioner. The same is dismissed.
11. I would like to add that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and are not designed .To influence the course of trial in any manner whatsoever.