ORDER KHALID PAUL KHAWAJA, J.- On 4.4.1994 at Police .Station Anti- Corruption Establishment, Lahore Range, Lahore a case under section 161, PPC read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was registered r against Shahhaz Hussan Shah Palwari (Consolidation) at the instance of Rana Muhammad Shafique complainant, It was alleged that the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 50.000/- from the complainant as bribe in connection with the consolidation proceedings with regard to the holdings of his father. As the complainant did not want to offer any bribe to the accused he informed the Anti- Corruption Department through an application and requested for arranging a raid. A Magistrate was appointed who signed five currency notes of the value of Rs. 4000/- for delivery to the accused. The said currency notes were handed over to the accused but somehow raid could not be conducted. It was further alleged that the accused had received a sum of Rs. 7.20,000/- from different land holders as bribe.
2. Apprehending his arrest the accused made an application for the grant of pre-arrest bail before the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Lahore. He was admitted to interim bail before arrest on 7.4.1994. Later on his interim bail before arrest was confirmed by the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti- Corruption vide order dated 12.7.1994.
3. Feeling aggrieved Muhammad Abbas petitioner has applied for the cancellation of the said bail.
4. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
5. The investigating officer who is present in Court states that the allegations contained in the FIR have not been substantiated. There is no evidence that the accused had received any money from Rana Muhammad Shafique complainant. The bribe money could not be recovered from the accused despite-the fact that he had joined the investigation, In fact Rana Muhammad Shafique complainant had disassociated himself from the present case, In this connection his statement before the investigating officer dated 12.6.1994 is noteworthy, It is alleged that the accused had received bribe from 33 persons. However, 28 persons out of them appeared before the investigating officer and staled that they had not given any bribe to the accused. In this view of the matter the present case was a case of further inquiry. The accused has asserted that he was being harassed by the petitioner and some other persons who were men of dubious character and were facing about 11 criminal cases and in fact they were annoyed with him as he had refused to help them in consolidation proceedings. In these circumstances learned counsel for the State did not support the application for cancellation of bail and maintained that in view of the material available on record pre-arrest bail was rightly granted to the accused.
6. It is note-worthy that the petitioner is not the complainant in the case against the accused nor he has been cited as a witness in the FIR. He alleges that he has paid Rs. 19,000/- to the respondent about 15/20 days prior to the occurrence. He has not been able-to substantiate that allegation before the investigating officer. I am of the opinion that to a public servant should not be cancelled merely on the asking of a person who is remotely concerned with the case and hold dubious credentials. Bail cannot also be cancelled merely on the ground that the Court granting the bail had not written a happily worded order.
7. Consequently, in view of the above discussion I find no substance in this application for cancellation of bail and dismiss the same.