TASSADAQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J. - Petitioner seeks bail in case FIR No. 80/96 dated 4-6-1996 under section 161 PPC read with section 5(2) 47 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Anti Corruption Establishment .Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad.
2. The prosecution story as given in the FIR registered on the statement of Muhammad Ramzan briefly stated is that petitioner in his capacity as Revenue Patwari obtained illegal gratification in consolidation proceedings to show undue favour: that the petitioner allegedly took Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant with a view to help the complainant in the consolidation proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the grounds that no time of the alleged occurrence is mentioned in the FIR; that no recovery was affected from the petitioner; that the eye- witnesses who allegedly saw petitioner receiving Rs. 25,000/- from the complainant are brother and son in law of the complainant; that no consolidation proceedings ever took place in the revenue estate in which petitioner was serving as Patwari and that allegation that he took illegal gratification to show favour in the consolidation proceedings therefore, is not credible.
On a Court query ,the Investigating Officer submitted that he made no inquiry as to whether consolidation proceedings ever took place in the revenue estate where petitioner was serving as Patwari. He further submitted that the challan has already been submitted in the trial Court.
4. Learned Addl. AG on the other hand, to be fair to him, submits that as the Investigating Officer has not been able to ascertain about the consolidation proceedings qua which the petitioner allegedly took illegal gratification, he would not seriously oppose the prayer for bail.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. In view of the statement of the Investigating Officer, qua consolidation proceedings and the fact that two witnesses named in the FIR are close relation of the complainant, the question of petitioner's guilt would call for further inquiry. He is in judicial lock and is no more required for further investigation, I am therefore inclined to admit the petitioner to bail in case FIR No. 80, dated 4-6-1996 PS ACE Faisalabad Division provided he furnishes bad bonds in the sum of Rs. 30,000 - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.