' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 07/2012, dated 15.02.2013 under Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station ACE/HQ, District Gujranwala.
2. As per F.I.R. The allegation against the petitioner that he being the Deputy Director PHATHA, Gujranwala approved many maps of buildings by misusing his authority, whereas this is within the domain of Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA), Nandipur. Map of Plot No, 9-Y-7-I being commercial-cum-residential was approved for commercial construction where only shops on ground floor and house permissible. As per F.I.R. 20% market price as Conversion Fee amounting to Rs, 14,00,000/- was required to he deposited, which was not deposited. Hence this F.I.R.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is duly authorized to grant such approvals under the Delegation of Powers on Housing Management dated 08.06.2014; that the plot in question has been commercialized as all the commercialization dues have been paid off; that the complainant, namely, Asif Jamil Mujaddadi was the owner of Plot No, 37-X-5 on which illegal construction was demolished by the orders of the petitioner and with the cooperation of TMA, which in fact carried vengeance in the mind of the complainant; that no allegation of bribe is levelled against the petitioner; that the petitioner is a Grade-18 officer and will be humiliated if his pre-arrest bail is refused. Places reliance upon Lal Muhammad Kalhoro and others v. The State (2007 SCM R 843), Shams-ud-Din v. Muhammad Shahbaz Qammar and 2 others (2009 SCM R 427), Shakeel Anjum Minhas v. The State and another (2011 YLR 274), Nasir Abbas Soomro v. The State (2011 YLR 1236) and Sameen Jan (Naib Tehsildar) and another v. The State & another (PLD 2011 SC 509) and, therefore, prays for confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
4. Conversely, learned Deputy Prosecutor General assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of pre-arrest bail and submits that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the F.I.R. Who has misused the authority; that he was found guilty during the inquiry; that the grounds of pre-arrest bail and post-arrest bail are entirely different; that the petitioner observed his designation as well as dual standards by applying different sets of laws to the plot of the complainant and to that of Plot No, 9-Y-7-I which by itself is an illegality and for which his bail should be refused.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. Admittedly, the complainant is not aggrieved of issuing the approval of map pertaining to Plot No, 9-Y-I. The government has not initiated any complaint against the petitioner. At the most, permission without authority in the absence of illegal gain or gratification by the petitioner may be a procedural lapse on his part. The negative report of the Technical Assistance of the Anti- Corruption Establishment will be better appreciated by the Trial Court after recording of evidence.
The petitioner is a Grade-18 officer and cannot abscond or tamper with the evidence, which is in the documentary form. At present, there are reasonable grounds leading to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and he is found apprehensive of arrest for ulterior motives in order to cause irreparable humiliation, disgrace and his honour. I place reliance upon Rana Muhammad v. Muhammad Rafique (2009 SCM R 427).
7. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed and petitioner's ad-interim pre- arrest bail already granted vide order dated 10.10.2013 is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like account to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.
Ad-interim pre-arrest .