By means of instant petition the petitioner has sought for his post-arrest bail in case FIR No, 26/2012, dated 14.06.2012, offence under Sections 269, 272, 273, 420, 468, 471, 161, PPC, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, 3/7 Slaughter Act 1963, 1965, 1970/1992, 2002/3, S. No, 3(2) B, 2(I) S (4.5), lodged at Police Station ACE Circle, Sargodha.
2. Precisely the facts of the case are that Muhammad Azeem Warraich, CO/ACE, Sargodha, conducted raid under the supervision of learned Special Judge Magistrate, Sargodha upon the official slaughter house, Sargodha as well as private slaughter houses set up by the butchers and on their shops, during which it was found by the raiding party that at the official slaughter house butchers were slaughtering animals and were themselves affixing seals thereon. The raid party also took into possession the seal alongwith pad of the concerned doctor/incharge of the slaughter house which was being used by the butchers. The raiding party also took into possession about 100 mounds meat, of sick, dead animals and water adulterated for destroying the same.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been involved in the instant case by the complainant against the actual facts and circumstances with malafides. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the crime report; rather he has been implicated in the instant case after conducting a frivolous inquiry. It is argued that the allegations against the petitioner are false and baseless. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is a government servant/ veterinary doctor and no incriminating material is available on the record to connect him with the commission of the offence alleged against him and if he is admitted to bail, there is no apprehension of his abscondence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is behind the bars since the date of his arrest and investigation being complete, his corpus is no more required by the police for further investigation and as such no useful purpose would be served by his further detention in jail.
4. Contrarily learned Deputy Prosecutor General has opposed this bail petition with full force with the averments that the petitioner is named in the crime report and sufficient incriminating material is available on the record in the shape of statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161, Cr.P.C. to connect him with the commission of offence alleged against him.
5. Arguments advanced at the bar heard. I have also gone through the record available on file.
6. The petitioner is not named in the crime report. During the course of arguments, learned Deputy Prosecutor General submitted that the butchers were found themselves affixing the stamp of the petitioner on the meat, however frankly conceded that nothing incriminating material could be recovered from the petitioner during the course of investigation. In such circumstances culpability of the petitioner would be determined by the learned trial Court during trial after recording of evidence. Moreover, 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 reported case of Firdaus Ahmad Khan Vs. The State (2004 M LD 208). The petitioner is stated to be previous non- convict/non record holder and behind the bars since the date of his arrest. Moreover, his person is no more required by the police for further investigation.
7. In sequel to above, this petition is ACCEPTED and the petitioner is admitted to bail after-arrest subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.