Through this petition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner namely Abid Hussain seeks post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 04 of 2019 dated 27.04.2019, registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment (Headquarter), Dera Ghazi Khan, in respect of offences under Sections 420, PPC and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No. II) of 1947.
2. The allegation against the petitioner , namely Abid Hussain, as culled from the evidentiary material produced before the Court, is that he cheated the complainant and other witnesses of an amount of Rs. 3,78,77,000/-.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Deputy Prosecutor General and with their able assistance perused the record.
4. This is a bail after arrest and deeper appreciation is not allowed at this stage. During the investigation of the case, despite the fact that as many as eleven claimants joined the investigation of the case and got recorded their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. however , none produced any documentary evidence so as to prove that he had handed over any amount to the petitioner himself. Furthermore, during the investigation of the case, despite the fact that the petitioner remained in custody of police for a considerable time however , nothing was recovered from him. The Investigating Officer has also not collected any details of the assets of the petitioner so as to prove that he had any assets beyond his means . It would be the learned trial Court which would be in a position to better determine the veracity of the prosecution evidence against the petitioner and at this stage, no such opinion is being formulated lest it prejudices the case of any party . It has been observed that the petitioner was arrested on 16.10.2019 and he is behind the bars since his arrest. The investigation has been finalized, as such, further detention of the petitioner in this case at this stage would not serve any fruitful purpose. Admittedly , the petitioner is a previous non-convict. The trial has not seen any fruitful progress as yet. Unden iably, case of the prosecution is entirely based upon the documentary evidence and relevant record has already been collected and seized by Investigating Officer and same is in the custody of the prosecution, hence, there is no apprehension of tampering with prosecution evidence. Reliance in this regard is placed on "Saeed Ahmed vs. The State" (1996 SCMR 1132), and "Muhammad Nawaz vs. The State throu gh Chairman, NAB, Islamabad and another" (PLD 2008 SC 438).
Even otherwise, the offences under Section 420, P.P.C. is bailable in nature as per Schedule II of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 while offence under Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act No. II) of 1947 does not fall within the parameters of restraining clause of Section 497(1), Code of Crim inal Procedure Code, 1898. It is settled that while dealing with the question of bail, Court should consider the minimum aspect of the sentence provided for the alleged offence in the schedule. In this. respect, I am supported with the case of "Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State" reported as PLD 1995 SC 34, wherein it has been mentioned that Section 497, Cr.P.C divided non-bailable offences into two categories (1) offences 'punishable with death, imprisonment of life or imprisonment for ten years (2) offences punishable for imprisonment of less than ten years, the principle to be deduced from this provision of law is that non-bailable offences falling in the second category (punishable with imprisonment for less than ten years) the grant of bail is a rule and refusal an exception. So the bail will be declined only in extraordinary and exceptiopal cases, for example:
(a) Whether there is likelihood of abscondence of the accused;
(b) Where there is apprehension of the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence;
(c) Where that is danger of the of fence being repeated if the accused is released on bail; and Where the accused is a previous convict.
This principle has also been reiterated in the case of "Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others" (2009 SCMR 1488 ), Riaz Jafar Natiq v. Muhammad Nadeem Dar and others (2011 SCMR 1708 ). Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case of similar nature.
5. For the foregoing reasons this petition is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,000,000/- (Rupees Two Million Only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
6. Needless to mention that any observations made in the above order are tentative in nature and shall not influence the trial Court. Additionally , a direction is issued to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously , preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this order . It is made clear that if the petitioner or any person acting on his behalf causes delay in the conclusion of the trial then the trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in accordance with law .