Ashiq Hussain complainant approached the petitioner on 31st July; 1982 to get copies of jamobandi appertaining to the land owned by one Ali Abbas. He required the copies as a property dealer. First, the petitioner was reluctant to provide him with the copies required by him. After some time he agreed to provide him with the copies provided he paid him Rs. 5,000. On the same day the petitioner asked the complainant to come on the following day at 12-00 noon with Rs. 5,000. On 1st August, 1982 the complainant contacted the Anti-Corruption (Establishment). A report was recorded by Muhammad Tufail Hayat S. I. A raid was arranged which was led by Mr. Rafiq Dad M. I.
C., Sheikhupura. The tainted money was passed to the petitioner and on the indication of the complainant he was held up by the raiding party. The tainted money was recovered from a shelf within the room the petitioner was sitting. A report was drawn by the raiding Magistrate. As to his explanation the petitioner stated before the Magistrate that he was innocent and that was a deliberate act on the part of the complainant or somebody else who had placed the tainted money in the shelf. At the time of the raid the complainant entered his room when he was in the compound. The complainant called him' in the room himself, The petitioner was arrested there and then.
2. The petitioner moved the Senior Special Judge (Anti-Corruption), Lahore for bail but his application .Was rejected vide order dated 4th August, 1982.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the last one month the petitioner is in the judicial lock-up. As to the impact of the offence the petitioner's case is not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. The case is otherwise likely to take longer time since a sanction for prosecution is to be procured. As to the merits of the case apart from the complainant there is no other witness. The learned counsel has maintained that the raiding Magistrate did not himself bear what passed between the petitioner and the complainant. The petitioner is the only bread winner of his family. His ailing father is confined in a hospital who is labouring there under renal colic. The petitioner had given a plausible explanation at the time be was held up. The petitioner in the first instance, refused to provide copies of the revenue papers to the complainant because Ali Abbas, the owner of the property, had given an application to the Tehsildar not to issue any Fard in respect with his property since he apprehended some mischief at the hands of certain persons. Lastly, he has submitted that the amount itself as it has been considered by the Senior Special Judge (Anti-corruption) in his order should not weigh against the grant of bail, and for that he has relied upon Ijaz Akhtar v. The State (1978 SCMR 64) and Haji Wali Muhammad v. State (1968 P Cr. L J 192).
4. The learned counsel for the State has opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution is in possession of material evidence and in that regard it is likely to succeed.
As to the shelf from which the money was recovered he has submitted that it was at a distance of one foot from the place the petitioner was seating him--self. When the tainted money was recovered there was none else in that room except the petitioner. He has agreed as to the legal position that in this case prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr. P. C. Is not attracted. Prima facie, the case is there because the tainted money has been recovered from the petitioner and as to his innocence all such considerations can be successfully raised at the trial stage.
5. The punishment provided for the offence under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is seven years' R. I. While under section 161, P. P. C. Is three years' R.
1. After weighing the submissions of both the learned counsel, the petitioner is being enlarged on bail only on one consideration and that is that the prohibitory clause as given in section 497, Cr. P. C. Is not attracted. He shall furnish security in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Sheikhu--pura.