' SALMAN HAMID, J.---In a nutshell the case is that the applicant who is an. Assistant Sub-Inspector in Sindh Police impersonated himself as. Sub-Inspector Umer of FIA and in such disguise he attempted to extort money from Muhammad Saleem, son of Abu Bakar (Complainant) on, the ground that complainant was involved in illegal import and export of gold and silver. For such purpose of extortion the applicant contacted the complainant on his mobile phone from his mobile phone. The complainant on his turn reported the matter to the FIA concerned. Resultantly FIA constituted a team; called the applicant, through the complainant near -PIA Crime Circle Karachi for payment of demanded amount. The applicant reached the assigned place (near FIA Crime Circle Karachi) where he (Applicant) was apprehended by FIA at which time from applicant's possession service card and CNIC and large amount of cash was recovered per , seizure memorandum in presence of witnesses namely, Muhammad Samar, son of Aun Muhammad and A.S.-I. Mansoor Mehmood. Later on the applicant was interrogated when he disclosed that he is working as Assistant Sub-Inspector in Sindh Police and that with connivance and collusion with his accomplices he extorted large amount of monies by blackmailing various persons.
2. In this backdrop of the case, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated and that the offences for which the applicant is charged with do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr.P.C. And that the matter against the applicant is of further inquiry and he is not a previous convict or involved in any criminal activity or case. It was also argued that at the time of arrest of the applicant no independent witness as required under section 103 of Cr.P.C. Was taken as such and that no recovery was made from the possession of the applicant at the time of his arrest. It was also asserted, that there was nothing on record to suggest that the applicant was involved in the crime and such was groundless. It was also implored that the applicant being a government servant has been involved due to mala fides and that only Anti-Corruption Department could take action against applicant and FIA had no jurisdiction to take action against Sindh Police employees. In support of his contentions learned counsel relied upon PLD 1995 SC 34, PLD 2006 Kar. 165, PLD 1963 (W.P.) Lahore 279, PLD 1995 Kar. 531,'
2001 PCr.LJ 1948, PLD 1996 Crl Cases (Lahore) 374 and PLD 1996 Kar.
253.
3. Application was vehemently resisted and opposed by learned Standing Counsel. It was mentioned that the applicant was apprehended red-handed during action. It was denied that the case of the applicant does not fall within the prohibitory clause as asserted by applicant counsel by stating that section 5(2) of Prevention from Corruption Act-II, 1947 attracts imprisonment of seven years and therefore, the case of the applicant squarely falls within the meaning of section 497 of Cr.P.C. It was also mentioned that under section 161, Cr.P.C. Statements of the complainant and that of Mr. Muhammad Samar and of Inspector Gulsher Mugheri and of Mr. Mansoor Mehmood and of Nafees Azhar, the applicant was fully implicated wherein it was mentioned that from the possession of the applicant hard and large cash amount was recovered together with mobile phones and other documents and therefore, no case for bail was made out. It was asserted that the application is liable to be dismissed.
4.Heard both the learned counsel and gone through record of the case. It is an admitted position that nowhere in the application, moved by the applicant, it was disputed or denied that he did not impersonate himself as S.-I. Umer of FIA. It also came on record that mobile phone and large cash amount was recovered from his possession which large amount, keeping in view the position of the applicant, was hard to imagine that he could carry/possess. It is also a fact that he was caught red-handed which fact was also not disputed or denied by the applicant save that he has been falsely implicated as he is employed in Sindh Police. Keeping in view all the factors which went unrebutted, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail-and also the fact that the applicant' is also charged for offence punishable under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-H, 1947, punishment whereof is seven years and therefore the case of the applicant falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of Cr.P.C. The various citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant under the facts and circumstances of the case are not applicable which even otherwise were clearly distinguishable. For above reasons, this bail application was dismissed in the morning.