ORDER NASIRA IQBAL, J.- Petitioner, Umar Din, has applied for bail after arrested in case FIR No.8 of 1995, registered at P.S., Anti-Corruption, Bhakkar, on 6.6.1995, under section 409/161 PPC read with section 52 of the prevention of Corporation Act, 1947, at the instance of one Abdullah.
2. According to the contents of the FIR the Forest Guard and the Range Officer had illegally felled valuable trees and thereafter had illegally disposed of the same to certain persons, thus committing criminal breach of trust. On investigation of the FIR the petitioner was stated to have been apprehended and. On his pointation wood of the value of Rs. 40,000/- was recovered from a pit and he was consequently arrested on 1.7.1995.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the persons who are named as accused in the FIR namely, the Forest Guard and the Range Officer, who are public servants and who have allegedly committed offence under section 409 PPC. Have yet not been apprehended while the co- accused of the petitioner namely Muhammad Amin from whom the wood belonging to the Forest Department of the value of Rs:200,000/- had been recovered, has been allowed bail by the learned special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Sargodha, while the petitioner has been singled out and his bail has been refused despite the fact that- he is sixty years of age and value of the wood allegedly recovered at his pointation is lesser than that recovered from Muhammad Amin, co-accused, therefore, on the principle of consistency the petitioner is entitled to bail. Learned counsel further argued that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of section 409 PPC rather his offence falls within the ambit of section 411 PPC for which maximum punishment is three years which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C, and as such he is entitled to bail on this ground also.
4. Learned counsel for the State has contended that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of Muhammad Amin since the wood had been recovered from a concealed pit on the pointation of the petitioner, thus, mensrea is established in his case while in the case of Muhammad Amin the wood was recovered from his saw-mill and he is stated to have purchased the same. Learned counsel has further argued that the principle accused i.e., the Forest Guard and the Range Officer have merely been allowed pre-arrested bails by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, which have not been confirmed so far and that since the offence of the petitioner falls squarely within the ambit of section 409 PPC for which maximum punishment is imprisonment for life or ten (10) years, the offence falls within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail.
5. Muhammad Shamim Jahangir, Assistance Director, Anti-Corruption, is also present in Court. He has admitted that the offences allegedly committed by Muhammad Amin, co-accused, and the petitioner are similar in nature since both of them would be in the knowledge of the fact that the wood purchased/acquired/received by them was a public property and that the same had come through dishonest means. He has also conceded that the principal accused are the public servants who are still at large.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as for the State. 1 have also examined the passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption. Sargodha, dated 19.6.1995, granting bail to Muhammad Amin, co-accused, who is accused of the offence similar as the petitioner. It is apparent from the order itself that the said Mohammad Amin admittedly" had been purchasing wood from the Forest officials and had subsequently paid a fine of Rs 58000/- on being discovered. He was fully aware of the fact that wood cannot be sold by the public officials except through public auction, as such, the offence of which he is charged is not distinguishable from that of the petitioner.
7. Keeping in view the principle of consistency since Mohammad Amin, co-accused, has been already admitted to post arrest bail, the petitioner would also be entitled to the same concession.
8. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner-is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 1.00.000 - with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The petitioner shall appear before the trail court on each and every date of hearing. The trail Court is authorised to cancel the bail of the petitioner if he is found abusing the same. However, the -observations made in this order shall not prejudice the case of either party during the trial which shall be decided on merits. This petition is disposed of. Copy dasti on payment of usual charges.