The petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case-FIR No. 03/2021, dated 15.02.2021, under Sections 420, 468, 471, PPC, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, registered at Police Station ACE District Vehari on the allegation that the petitioner got employment as ESE presenting the educational credentials showing high aggregate and by committing forgery had drawn salaries and allowances from the government treasury , hence this FIR.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner , learned Deputy Prosecutor General and perusing the record, it is straightaway observed that as per the contents of FIR, the petitioner was selected as ESE (Arts) on 31.07,2017 and was adjusted at Govt. Elementary School, Shehtabgarh, Mailsi under the recruitment policy of 2016-17. He attached the copies of SSC from BISE Multan passed with 711/850 marks in 2005, HSSC from BISE Multan passed with 782/1000 in 2008, B.A. from BZU Multan passed with 532/800 in the year 2011 and M.A. from Islamia University Bahawalpur with 673/1300 passed in the year 2016. Later the AEO Markaz Shehtabgarh reported that petitioner was illegally appointed as his aggregate was not 66.61 ratio A rather it was 58.70 as he had the following educational documents. i) Passed SSE from BISE Multan with 379/850 marks in 2005. ii) Passed HSSE from AIOU Islamabad with 594/1000 marks in 2008 iii) Passed BA from AIOU Islamabad with 652/1 100 marks in 201 1 iii) Passed MA from Islamia University Bahawalpur with 676/1300 marks in 2016 iv) Passed B.Ed from AIOU Islamabad with 630/900 marks in 2013.
An inquiry was conducted under disciplin ary proceedings which recommended the major penalty of termination of the employment contract and to lodge the FIR. However , it is yet to be probed that how the petitioner was able to manage the employment without the verification of his documents. Surprisingly , he has been drawing the salary without having genuine documents, but it is more shocking to see that those who were responsible for such criminal negligence were not neither interrogated nor cited as accused persons. Obviously , this alleged crime could not possibly be committed single hande dly by the petitioner . If the petitioner was the direct beneficiary , the appointing authority was at least negligen t and had failed in his duty to legally authenticate the recruitment process to the extent of the petitioner . It looks that there was no scrutiny . In the facts and circumstances, prima-facie the learned trial Court will discuss how the provision of Sections 468, 471, PPC attracted against the petitioner . Section 420, PPC is bailable. Sections 468, 471, PPC are not cognizable and punishment under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory claus e of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 25.03.2021 and no incriminating material used for the preparation of forged documents was recovered.
3. In this view of the matter , this application is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.