ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J.---Applicant Abdul Hameed son of Abdul Razzaq has sought post arrest bail in case under FIR No.57/2019 dated 29.6.2019 registered at Police Station ACE West Karachi in respect of offences under section 161, P.P.C. read with Section 5(2) Act-II, 1947.
2. Brief facts as narrated by complainant in the FIR are that a person namely Abdul Hameed, showing himself as Government employee of Labour Department, met with the complainant and offered him to pay Rs.3,50,000/- for Government job as Junior Clerk in the Labour Department. Thereafter, the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to him as advance on 26.6.2019 and decided that the remaining amount shall be paid in installments. On 28.6.2019 the said Abdul Hameed contacted and informed the complainant that he .would give him appointment letter on 29.6.2019, but on the said date, no appointment letter was given to the complainant as such he registered case against applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused contended that the applicant/accused is innocent and falsely been implicated by ACE; that, neither IO nor Magistrate has heard the conversation between applicant / accused and complainant at the time of passing of tainted money; that, offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.; that, he is no more required for further investigation as he is in judicial custody since his arrest. Lastly, he contended that the matter requires further enquiry, hence prayed for grant of bail to the applicant/accused.
4. Conversely, the learned APG has strenuously opposed the bail application contending that the applicant was caught red-handed and the tainted amount was recovered from him; and that the offence committed by the applicant is not compoundable and appears to serious in nature. In support of his case, he relied upon case-law reported in 2016 MLD 2072 (Jhamandas v. State).
5. After hearing the parties' advocates, I have come to this conclusion that in this matter challan has been submitted and this applicant/accused is no more required for investigation. The whole case of the prosecution is based upon the evidence of police officials and interested witnesses, therefore, their evidence are required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial whether the incident has taken place in a fashion as stated in FIR or otherwise. First Information Report is also delayed by three days, for which no explanation has been furnished.
6. There is only allegation that the applicant/accused demanded Rs.3,50,000/- from complainant for Government job as Junior Clerk in the Labour Department for which he received Rs.10,000/- as illegal gratification and remaining amount was promised to be paid. Subsequently, as a result of a trap, the present accused was arrested. It is argued that the raid conducted was not in accordance with law. He further argued that there is no evidence on record that the trap party has ever heard the conversation between the accused and complainant party at the time, when the alleged illegal gratification was settled and it is yet to be determined whether it was the part payment of the illegal gratification allegedly settled between the accused and complainant or otherwise. The applicant is behind the bars since his arrest. Be that as it may, since the alleged offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C., the present applicant is first offender.
Nothing on record that he was remained indulged in such type of cases in past, therefore, the case of the applicant/accused requires further probe. Under these circumstances, this bail application is accepted and accused shall be released On bail in this case, upon furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and PR bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The case-law cited by learned APG has been perused and considered by me but did not find applicable to the facts of present case. Even otherwise, in criminal administration of justice each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances, and courts are required to exercise jurisdiction independently as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of State v.
Haji Kabir Khan reported as PLD 2005 SC 364 and Muhammad Faiz alias Bhoora v. The State and another reported as 2015 SCMR 655.
7. Needless to mention here that observations, if any, made hereinabove are tentative in nature and would not influence the trial court while deciding the case of the applicant/accused on merits. It may be mentioned here that in case during proceedings before trial Court, if applicant misuses the bail, then trial Court would be competent to cancel the bail of the applicant without making any reference to this Court.