By this order I propose to dispose of Criminal Misc. No. 1335-B/82 which has arisen out of the order of Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Multan at Sahiwal dated 26th June, 1982 dismissing the bail plea of the petitioner in a case F.I.R. No. 89, dated 25th May, 1982 under section 409, P.P.C. Police Station Sadar Sahiwal. According to the prosecution the petitioner while performing his official duties as Senior Clerk-Cashier in the office of Extra --Assistant Director, Agriculture, Sahiwal prepared bogus bills for salary and thus misappropriated Government money to the tune of Rs. 1,83,800,20. The petitioner was arrested on 6th June, 1982. He remained on remand to police custody for 14 days and thereafter he was committed to judicial lock--up. It is stated that the handwriting of the petitioner alongwith the forged bills have been sent to the Handwriting Expert to verify if the questioned salary bills were prepared by the petitioner. The report of the handwriting expert is still awaited, and also sanction for his prosecution is yet to be obtained.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as for the State. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the evidence collected against the petitioner so far is inconclusive inasmuch as the report of the handwriting expert is still awaited. Next contended that the petitioner is in Jail for the last more than five months, and it will still cause more delay in obtaining the sanction for the prosecution and thus the trial of the petitioner would be delayed indefinitely. He therefore, concluded that petitioner is a public servant and is entitled to the grant of bail because there is no likelihood that he would tamper with the evidence or would abscond.
3. As against this learned counsel for the State submits that huge amount is involved in the case and also offence being punishable with life imprisonment, the case of the petitioner falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P.C. Therefore, he does not deserve the concession of bail.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for both) the parties and find that the amount involved is of course sufficiently large and this fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail particularly when the investigation is complete, except that the report of the hand-- writing expert is awaited. There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel that the proposed evidence to be adduced at the trial comprised documentary evidence and tampering with the same is no possible. As far as the question of prohibition contained in subsection (1) of section 497 is concerned, a Court is not supposed to keep in view only the maximum sentence provided under relevant law rather it is to be see what punishment is likely to be awarded ultimately to an accused in particular circumstances of the case. To grant the bail is rule and t refuse is an exception. The petitioner is admittedly a public servant an there is no likelihood of his abscondence.
5. For the reasons stated above I am inclined to allow this petition. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties in the like amount t the satisfaction of Assistant Commissioner Duty Magistrate, Sahiwal.
Ball granted.