This is an application for bail after attest on behalf of Abid Shehzad (petitioner) in case FIR No, 377, dated 03.11.2017, under Section 161, PPC read with 5/2-47, PCA, registered with Police Station FIA, District Multan.
2. Succinctly stated, the case of the prose cution as it gleans from the crime report is to the effect that the petitioner received an amount of Rs, 5,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant in order to get him cleared from a criminal case; that at the time of payment of Rs, 5,000/- the FIA officials arrested him red-handedly through a raid.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner contends that he is innocent; that the offences applied in the FIR do not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C.; that in such like cases grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception; that the petitioner is a public servant, hence there is no apprehension of his abscondment. With these submissions, teamed counsel prayed for the grant of post arrest bail.
4. The learned Law Officer has opposed the grant of bail and argued that the petitioner is specifically nominated in the crime report; that he was arrested during raid and that too in the thick of occurrence, while receiving Rs, 5,000/- as illegal gratification; that the case of the petitioner is of exceptional nature, which renders him disentitled from the concession of bail.
5. Arguments heard; record perused.
6. It evinces from the perusal of the record that the petitioner stands implicated in the instant case with the allegation of having received an amount of Rs, 5,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification. He was arrested in the thick moments of receipt of an amount of Rs, 5,000/- as illegal gratification, which was also recovered from him. In the above backdrop, it is observed that even as per story incorporated in the FIR, none of the raiding party heard the ongoing conversion between the petitioner and complainant. This aspect of the matter itself is sufficient to bring the case of the petitioner within the purview of Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. as the consideration for which the amount was received by the petitioner can best be determined after the ultimate appraisal of proposed prosecution evidence. Even otherwise, the offences applied in the FIR do not attract the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and in such like case rule is bail and not jail.
7. The petitioner , who is a public servant stands arrested in the instant case since 03.11.2017 and despite the submission of report under Section 173, Cr.P.C., no progress has yet been made in the trial. All the facts mentioned above cumulatively make the petitioner entitled to the concession of post-arrest bail.
8. In view of above, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted post arrest bail subject to furnishing of bail bond to the tune of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.