1. ' IRFAN SAADAT KHAN, J.---This Criminal Bail Application has been filed against the order passed by District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South/Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) at Karachi dated 24-5-2013 whereby the bail application moved by the applicant was rejected.
2. ' Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a case was registered on the application given by complainant Aftab Alam addressed to Deputy Director ACE, West Zone, Karachi wherein it was alleged that. H.C. Turab Ali and S.I. Khalid Kalam, Incharge NOC ACLC, SP Office, Sharifabad, Karachi demanded a sum of Rs,10,000 from him for issuance of NOC for ten motorcycles. As per the complainant, he has applied for issuance of NOC for 5 motorcycles only. The complainant then agreed to pay the above mentioned bribe money to the above-named persons on submission of forms in the ACLC. The complainant then made a request to the Deputy Director, ACE, West Zone, Karachi to take action against the above-named delinquent police officials. The Deputy Director then, with the help of Judicial Magistrate arranged a trap, hence a case was registered under section 161/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), Act II, 1947 against H.C. Turab Ali and S.I. Khalid Kalam.
3. When the trap was arranged, it was decided that the culprits would be apprehended red-handed and marks were made on the currency notes. The said party reached the designated place comprising Inspector Ayaz Kakepota, Supervising Officer Mr. Zaheer Ahmed, VIIth Judicial Magistrate and Civil Judge, Karachi Central, Karachi. At about 12.25 noon the trap party along with Supervising Officer proceeded to ACLC Office and at about 1-15 p.m. They reached the said office.
4. The trap party then took position at different places and the Judicial Magistrate sat in the car near the gate of the ACLC Office when the complainant along wtih witnesses reached at the office of ACLC and met A.S.-I. Khalid Kalam and H.C. Turab Ali to hand over the bribe money along with duly filled in NOC forms. Khalid Kalam and Turab Ali then directed H.C. Salman Haider who was checking the vehicles outside the office of ACLC to collect the forms and the bribe money from the complainant. The said Salman Haider then received the said bribe amount of Rs,5,000 from the complainant in presence of the witnesses and the Inspector Ayaz Kakepota and Supervising Officer saw the entire scene and immediately reached at the spot and held up Salman Haider with bribe money and NOC Forms which he was carrying in his hands. When he was interrogated about the money, he could not give plausible reply: Then the numbers of the currency notes recovered from his possession were tallied with the memo of handing over of trap money and those were found to be the same. Then Salman Haider was arrested and the team proceeded to the office of Supervising Officer and after dropping him at his office at 4.00 the team reached the office of Deputy Director, ACLC West Zone, Karachi. Memo of Arrest and Recovery of trap money being the tainted notes were handed over to the I.O. In presence of the Supervising Officer.
5. ' The applicant/accused moved bail application before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial), Karachi which was dismissed and it is against this order that the present bail application has been moved.
6. ' Mr. Ehsan Raza advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicant and submitted that the name of the applicant/accused has not appeared in the F.I.R. He stated that the accused was standing outside the ACLC Office. He stated that the accused has falsely been implicated in the case and the case has been foisted upon him. He stated that the role of the complainant is also suspicious as why he had agreed to pay the bribe money to the accused. He stated that the arrest memo was not prepared at the spot and he further stated that no action against the said Khalid Kalam and Turab Ali was taken and only Salman Haider has been arrested in the instant case. He submitted that the offence committed by the accused is bailable but since the matter has been referred to the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, the said offence has become non-bailable. He further stated that the report of the Judicial Magistrate is delayed by one day. He, in view of above facts, stated that this is a case of further enquiry and the applicant/accused may be enlarged on bail. In support of his above contentions, he relied upon the following decisions:--
(i) 1999 PCr.LJ [Aurangzeb v. The 293 State]
(ii) PLD 1963 SC [Noor Muhammad v. 38 The State]
(iii) 1999 MLD [Sajid Naveed v. The 156 State]
(iv) 2004 PCr.LJ [Islam Pervez v. The 1336 State]
(v) 1978 PCr.LJ [Manzoor Hussain 885 Shah v. The State]
(vi) 1984 PCr.LJ [Abdul Hamid v. The 2774 State]
(vii) 1986 PCr.LJ [Jangsher v. The State] 473
(viii) 1989 PCr.LJ [Faizullah Khan v. The 2217 State]
(xi) 1999 PCr.LJ [Umer Din v. The1339 State]
(x) 2010 PCr.LJ [Muhammad Hasan v.572 The State]
(xi) 1993 PCr.LJ [Muhammad Ibrahim 80 v. The State] ' Learned A.P.-G., on the other hand, supported the order of the trial Court and submitted that there is no enmity between the aiding party and the accused, hence the question of foisting of case and falsely implicating the applicant does not arise. He further stated that the memo of arrest has been prepared at the spot. He further stated that the applicant/accused was apprehended red-handed from the spot along with the bribe money and he does not deserve any leniency. He stated that when the raiding party apprehended the accused and asked him about the money recovered from him, no plausible and satisfactory reply was furnished by him. He stated that the report of the Judicial Magistrate is quite clear and no mala fide is appearing from the said report. He further stated that no reason has been given by the applicant for accepting the money. He stated that the order passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law. He stated that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length perused the record and the decisions relied upon.
8. From the record it is quite evident that the applicant/accused was apprehended red-handed from the spot by a team comprising 3 to 4 persons. It is also an undeniable fact that the tainted money was recovered from the possession of the applicant which aspect has not been denied by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is further noted that it is the applicant who took the amount from the complainant and that the incident was seen by the witnesses including the Judicial Magistrate with his own eyes. It is further noted that no doubt the name of the applicant/accused is not mentioned in the F.I.R. But a specific role has been assigned to him which, prima facie, connects him in the commission of crime. It is also seen from the record that when interrogated about the tainted money, no plausible explanation could be furnished by the applicant for accepting the money. It is also an undeniable fact that Salman Haider was not known to the complainant previously, then what was the occasion of accepting the money from him which fact has not been explained. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant have been perused and are found to be distinguishable. It is a trite proposition of law that in bail matters no deeper appreciation is permissible and the court only has to make a tentative assessment.
9. ' In view of the facts recorded above, I am of the view that no case for interference is made out and the applicant/ accused, at this juncture, is not entitled to be given the benefit of bail. The instant bail application is; therefore, dismissed. Needless to state that the observations made above are only tentative in nature and the trial Court would not be influenced with the above observations.