The Petitioner has moved this petition for the grant of post-arrest bail in Case FIR No. 04/2012 dated 31.01.2012, registered under Section 420, 468, 471, PPC read with Section 5(2)47 PCA, at Police Station, ACE, Headquarter Bahawalpur.
2. The precise allegation set forth in the FIR against the petitioner is that he made some tempering in the official record by shown the ownership of the Mst. Saman Maqbool instead of Mst. Sadia Maqbool. During the investigation, the petitioner was found guilty alongwith others.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no direct evidence for the involvement of the petitioner has been brought on record as nobody has named the petitioner for making the tempering in the record. Further contends that Sections 420 and 468 are non- cognizable, whereas Section 471 is bailable while Section 5(2), Act, II of 1947 is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or fine or both. Further contends that the other co- accused have been granted bail by the learned trial Court and the case of the petitioner is undistinguishable from that of others to whom bail has been allowed, therefore, keeping in view the rule of consistency the petitioner is also entitled to grant of bail; that the petitioner is behind the bars since his arrest and nothing is required to be recovered and the case of the petitioner is one of further inquiry.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General vehemently opposed the petition for grant of bail; that the petitioner is duly nominated in the FIR and the conduct of the petitioner is such that he is not entitled to grant of bail. Further submits that the challan has been submitted in the Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.
6. It is observed that most of the Sections applied in this case are non-cognizable and some of them, are bailable. Only Section 5(2), Act-II of 1947 is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or fine or with both, which does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P:C. He is no longer required by the police; he is behind the bars since his arrest and no useful purpose shall be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite period. Even otherwise, bail cannot be refused as a punishment and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a long time. The offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause. The other co-accused have already allowed bail, therefore, keeping in view the rule of consistency and law laid down by the Hon"ble Supreme Court (PLD 1995 SC 34), wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a rule and refusal thereto is an exception, thus entitling the petitioner to the grant of bail. ##TE#
7. Under the given peculiar circumstances, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted post-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Bahawalpur.