' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--Applicant/accused has been booked in Crime No,24 of 2013, Police Station Anti-Corruption Karachi South, under section 161 P.P.C. R/W section 5(2) of Act 1947-11. Earlier to this, applicant/accused exhausted primary remedy hinges with the trial court, moved post- arrest bail application before the learned Court of Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) which was dismissed vide order dated 10-9-2013, impugned herein.
2. The sum and substance of the prosecution story as is incorporated in the F.I.R. Are that complainant is serving as business Inspector (HR) in Coca Cola (Pvt.) Company; in the month of Ramzan applicant visited company in order to carry out audit/inspection of the company. Upon which complainant told applicant/accused that in the first instance he may serve a notice, simultaneously applicant/accused gave notice and told complainant for audit/inspection. The complainant replied applicant/accused that he may come after some time to make audit/inspection. By the passage of time on 2-9-2013 applicant/ accused arrived at the factory and demanded Rs,20,000 as illegal gratification thereafter applicant/accused will sign the inspection book. Complainant told applicant/accused that now their internal audit is in progress as such he may come afterwards on 4-9-2013. Whereupon applicant/accused directed complainant to arrange the said bribe money otherwise he will serve notice through Court and also spoiled the inspection report. The complainant claimed against applicant for misusing his official powers illegally demanding bribe of Rs,20,000, as such instant F.I.R. Was registered.
3. I have heard learned counsel representing the applicant/accused and learned Deputy Prosecutor-General.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has stressed his arguments that applicant is innocent person and has been falsely implicated by the complainant with ulterior motives and mala fide intentions otherwise applicant has nothing to do with alleged offence and he has never demanded any illegal gratification. He further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of applicant connecting him with commission of crime. He further submitted that in fact applicant is Deputy Director in Labour Department, Government of Sindh and he found some discrepancies and warned the complainant's company to rectify the same and reasonable time was granted to the complainant, however, the complainant company paid no heed and then the complainant company cooked up false story against the applicant. Learned' counsel further submitted that as per the contents of F.I.R. Alleged offence was committed on 4-9-2013 but F.I.R.
Was lodged in advance on 3-9-2013 on basis of apprehension, which creates series of doubt in the prosecution story, hence the case of applicant/accused calls for further enquiry. He further submitted that offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. He further submitted that, trap party/Magistrate did not hear the conversation between complainant and the applicant/accused at the time of alleged offence in order to ascertain that how much amount was given by the complainant to the applicant/accused in fact the amount was allegedly illegal gratification. In the last, learned counsel submitted that applicant is a diabetic patient and takes regular medicine and treatment; if, the applicant/accused is not admitted to bail his life would be at the verge of danger, hence he prayed that applicant may be enlarged to bail. He relied upon the case-law and referred case of Muhammad Suleman v. The State (2013 PCr.LJ 1051), Muhammad Waheed v. The State and another (2012 MLD 1945), Raja Muhammad Zahid v. The State 1999 PCr.LJ 503, Muhammad Tufail v. The State (1996 PCr.LJ 149), Sameen Jan (NAIB TEHSILDAR), another v. The State reported in PLD 2011 Supreme Court 509 and 2001 SCMR 634 Bashir Ahmad v. The State.
5. Conversely learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and has argued that applicant was arrested in presence of Judicial Magistrate. It is further contended that there is sufficient material on record to connect the applicant/accused with the commission of offence; learned D.P.G. Therefore, prays that bail application may be dismissed.
6. Having gathered the respective contention raised and peiused the relevant police papers as well as the record, available. It transpires that trapping party/ Magistrate did not hear the conversation between applicant and the complainant at the time when alleged illegal gratification was settled and agreed to be paid on 4-9-2013. It also surface that alleged F.I.R. Was lodged on 3-9-2013 and the incident alleged to have been taken place on 4-9-2013. Apart from above, keeping the applicant/accused behind the bars being a diabetic patient would not serve any useful purpose, as the official/accused is an old age as such there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidences, as otherwise investigation has been completed and challan has already been submitted before the learned trial Court. Be that as it may, I am fortified with the case law reported in the case of Bashir Ahmed v. The State reported in 2001 SCMR Page 634, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold as follows:-- "---S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 161---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Bail-Trap proceedings---Public servant (accused) caught by members of a raiding party while taking a bribe/illegal gratification--- Conversation between accused and complainant at the time of paym ent of bribe money-- Scope---Where a public servant was charged for receiving a bribe, not only the paym ent of bribe money was to be seen but conversation between the parties had to be heard also by the members of the raiding party so as to eliminate chances of involvement of innocent person".
' In the case of Sameen Jan (NAIB TEHSILDAR) and another v The State and another reported PLD 2011 Supreme Court 509, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:- "-Investigation of the case had already been finalized and, thus, physical custody of the petitioners was not required at this stage for the purpose of investigation,--Continued custody of the petitioners in jail in circumstances was not likely to serve and beneficial purpose at this juncture ----Concession of bail ought not to be withheld by way of premature punishment-- Both the petitioners were public servants and there was little likelihood of their absconding in case of admission to bail--Case against the petitioners called for further inquiry into their guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Petition for leave to appeal was therefore, converted into an appeal"
7. For the foregoing reasons, I am of, the considered view that case of the applicant/accused requires further probe in to his guilt therefore, applicant/accused deserve for the concession of post-arrest bail. Accordingly, applicant/accused is admitted to bail subject to furnishing his solvent surety in the sum of Rs,500,000 (Rupees Five Hundred Thousand Only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. The learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within the period of three months. If in case, the applicant/accused has avoided to proceed with the case, in the first instance, learned trial Court is directed to lift concession of the to him.
Note:- Needless to say that, the observation made herein are tentative in nature and will not prejudice the case of either party at the time of trial.