1. ' Bail is sought by the applicant in respect of F.I.R. No,1 of 1998 registered at Police Station F.I.A., State Bank Circle, Karachi on 15-4-1998 at 17-30 hours.
2. ' Briefly the case set up by the prosecution against the applicant is that one Abdul Sattar son of Muhammad Khan had lodged a report stating therein that he is a Civil Engineer and had formed a firm in the name and style of techno Industrial dealing with civil constructions. He is stated to be working with the Port Qasim Authority, wherein the present applicant is stated to be holding charge as Engineer of the project/project incharge. It was complained that the present applicant gave tough time to the complainant and had compelled him to part with illegal gratification by using coercive methods. Consequently, the allegation is that a sum of Rs,22,00,000 had been paid by the complainant-to the applicant as illegal gratification in the period from 1996 upto 1997. Further details of payments of Rs,22,00,000 have also been spelled out in the F.I.R. The video tape in respect of two payments having been made to the applicant was also stated to have been provided to Investigating Agency. It has further transpired in the F.I.R. That the complainant had mentioned the facts to one Mir Mazhar Jabbar, Assistant Director, F.I.A., CC-II, Karachi for legal action, who had made the complainant to jot down the report in terms of the F.I.R.
3. ' Upon perusal of the F.I.R., it would be seen that the case is neither a trap case nor is it a case of illegal gratification.
4. ' The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is not recipient of the amounts in question nor is the applicant the final authority for sanctioning funds at Port Qasim Authority. The applicant was not exclusively authorised to direct disbursement of payment to the complainant and that there was a committee of five members of the Port Qasim Authority who had to unanimously decide as and when question of payments to contractors for projects of Port Qasim Authority arose. The learned counsel for the applicant further contended that the video recording, which has been heavily relied upon by the learned Trial Court, would be a piece of secondary evidence and cannot be taken into consideration without independent corroboration. No specific evidence is stated to have been recorded in the said video cassette. It was further contended that the complainant waited for a period of two years to report the matter and, therefore, manipulation was manageable. He has invited my attention to five running bills passed earlier in respect of the complainant's firm for which there has been no complaint whatsoever against the applicant. He has lastly submitted that it is a dangerous practice to rely on evidence of a nature as in the instant case because such practice would breed instruments of blackmailing in society.
5. Attack has also been made on the character of the complainant. My attention has further been invited to a requisition of Port Qasim Officers Association addressed to its Chairman on 21st April, 1998 requesting blacklisting of the complainant-firm from the Port Qasim Authority. He has denied the video recording to be the recording of the applicant.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui, the learned Deputy Attorney-General, has contended before me that the F.I.R. Is not belated as there. Were pending bills of the complainant which, in fact, occasioned the delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. Upon query, the Deputy Attorney- General was very fair in stating that he has no specific information as to what was the quantum of bills pending in respect of the complainant's firm or for that matter how long the bills remain pending with the Port Qasim Authority. Learned Deputy Attorney-General heavily relied upon a cheque which, according to the prosecution, was for the benefit of the applicant but yet upon another query, it was very fairly stated that he cannot specifically state as to who had encashed the cheque. He had further contended that at least, at this stage, it is not a case for bail and appropriate directions could be issued to the learned Trial Court. Mr. Raja Sardar Khan, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there has been no delay in the lodging of the F.I.R. And that the transaction which has been shown is amply evident enough that the applicant is involved in the commission of the alleged offence. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the applicant on 1995 PCr.LJ page 1919 and Imtiaz Ahmed and another v. The State PLD 1997 SC 545; whereas the learned counsel for the complainant had relied upon Ch. Bashir v. The State PLD 1969 Pesh. 49; the State v. Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad PLD 1996 Lah. 624 and Sufi Muhammad Asid v. The State 1997 MLD 2613.
7. Having considered the submissions made before me and having considered the provision of Article 164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat which provides the evidence to be admissible which has been procured through modem devices, yet keeping in view the fact that there is a possibility of mimicry and camera trick available in our society and also the fact that the maximum punishment provided is of seven years not falling within the prohibitory clause with yet another factor that the entire prosecution evidence is available with the Investigating Agency, it would be risky at the stage of bail to exclusively rely upon a video cassette which could be an outcome of a camera trick, however, the same could surely be taken into consideration in evidence at the stage of trial.
8. There has been delay of over two years in lodging of the F.I.R. And cases of this nature without independent corroboration, are to be viewed with suspicion at least at the stage of bail, benefit, if any, should go in favour of the applicant. Maximum punishment provided for the alleged offence being seven years therefore, refusal would be punishment in advance to the applicant, which is not the intent of Legislature. I would, therefore, admit the applicant to bail upon his furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 (Rupees ten lac only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Criminal Bail Application No,409 of 1998 stands disposed of alongwith the listed applications. Before parting with this order, it may be observed that the observations made by me would not be taken into consideration at the stage of trial by the learned Trial Court.