' ZIA-UR-RAHMAN KHAN, J.---Having remained un-successful in obtaining his release on bail in case F.I.R. No,63 dated 29-9-2010 under section 489(F), P.P.C. Police Station FIA Crime Circle, Peshawar, the petitioner has moved the instant petition for the said purpose.
2. Although the entire facts of the case need not be re-iterated because the same have been referred to elaborately by the learned Special Judge in his order dated 15-11-2010. However, the charge against the petitioner is that he has, received Rs,1,40,000 as illegal gratification from the complainant side for the installation of a Transformer at the complainant's Tube Well at his village.
The complainant side allegedly came into action when the petitioner failed to install the Transformer within the prescribed period. The learned Special Judge has declined his plea of bail on the ground that there is ocular evidence of certain witnesses against him with regard to the payment of bribe amount. Another reason given in the said order is that as the petitioner while admitting the receipt of the said amount had issued a cheque to the complainant side in the sum of Rs,100,000 but the same bounced for want of money in his account, which as per prosecution story has given rise to another offence as well.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that as far as the charge against the petitioner under section 489-F is concerned, the same is yet to be ascertained as to under what circumstances the cheque got bounced. As regards the other section, he pleaded that the punishment provided therein does not fall within the prohibitory clause and it lies discretionary with the court either to order the conviction or to impose fine. He further contended that the petitioner being government employee is in the lock up since the date of his arrest, the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required for further investigation, his case is of further inquiry and he is entitled to be released on bail.
4. On the contrary, the respondent side vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is prima facie involved under different sections of law and he does not deserve to be extended the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. As discussed above, the petitioner is the employee of Wapda and the charge against him is that of illegal gratification but the question needing resolution by this court is that under what circumstances and in whose presence the said amount was paid and whether the explanation offered by the petitioner in this regard is trustworthy or otherwise is a question which requires further probe through recording of evidence. This fact is also yet to be proved against him as to whether he issued the cheque with dis-honest intention in order to hood-wink the complainant side or the same got bounced in view of some other circumstances like in-sufficiency of amount. In this regard, if his own statement is believed, he has shown his willingness to refund the alleged amount which according to him was borrowed from the complainant as loan owing to his sister's marriage.
7. As far as the offence under section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the same does not 'fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. And the punishment provided therefor is conviction or fine or with both, meaning thereby that it is the discretion of the court to inflict any punishment keeping in view the available circumstances of the case.
8. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case referred to above, the petitioner has made out an arguable case for the purpose of his release on bail within the ambit of section 497, Cr.P.C. And as reasonable grounds exist to believe that his case is of further inquiry, thus this court does not feel any hesitation in accepting his plea of bail.
9. Accordingly, the instant petition is accepted, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,300,000 (three lac) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Duty/Illaqa Judicial Magistrate who shall ensure that the sureties are local, men of means and reliable.
' Above are the reasons in support of my short order of the even date.