' A case was registered against the petitioner vide F.I.R. No,2/89 at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, on 24-1-1989 under section 420/161, P.P.C., read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. According to the F.I.R., the accused/ambulance driver had extracted Rs,400 from the complainant, Habib-ur-Rehman, with the promise to transport his brother-in-law, Ghulam Hussain who had been injured in a motor-cycle accident to the B.V. Hospital in Bahawalpur from Ahmedpur East, the place of accident. It is further stated that the accused never turned up at the place of accident along with his ambulance to transport the injured to the Hospital in Bahawalpur. Hence this complaint against him.
3. The petitioner was arrested on 28-1-1989 and he is in the judicial lock-up.
4. The petitioner/accused had moved a bail application before the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Bahawalpur, but the same was rejected vide order dated 2-2-1989.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends for bail on the following grounds:-
(i) That there is a delay of one year in the registering of the F.I.R. Without any explanation for the same;
(ii) That no eye-witnesses are named in the F.I.R., therefore, it is a case of further inquiry;
(iii) That at best it is a case of cheating under section 420, P.P.C. Which is bailable;
(iv) That the petitioner/accused is in the judicial lock-up and is no longer required by the police; and
(v) Lastly that all the sections namely, section 420/161 of the P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr.P C.
6. The learned counsel for the State contends that as the complaint was processed before the registration of the case against the petitioner/accused, therefore, it took so much time and that by itself is sufficient to explain the delay in the lodging of the present F.I.R. The facts and circumstances of the present case as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not refuted by the learned counsel for the State.
7. In view of the fact offences stated in the F.I.R., namely, section 420/161 of the P.P.C. And section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 are not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Cr.P.C., and as there are no eye-witnesses named in the F.I.R. Which makes it a case of further inquiry, therefore, the petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs,20,000 (Rs, Twenty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this Court.