' Vide F.I.R. No,30, dated 11-10-1992 in Police Station, Crime Branch, F.I.A., Peshawar the petitioner has been charged for having committed an offence punishable under section 409, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. After having failed to procure bail from Mr. Muhammad Irshad Khan, the Special Judge (Central)
Anti-Corruption and Immigration, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, the petitioner has now come to this Court for the redress of his grievance.
3. Mr. Abdul Qayum Sarwar, Advocate and Mr. Muhammad Jamshed Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muhammad Saddiq Haider Qureshi, Advocate learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No,2 and Kh. Azhar Rashid learned Assistant Advocate-General for State/respondent No,1 present and heard. Record of the case perused.
4. It would be necessary to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order here, vide which the Special Judge had refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in order to find out as to whether or not the Special Judge had taken into his consideration the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. For refusing bail. The relevant portion of the said order is:-- "I have given my anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced for and against the bail petition in the light of the material placed on record. The accused' petitioner named above is directly charged in the first information report. The matter regarding misappropriation of a huge amount was reported by the Head of his department. The accused petitioner remained posted as In charge of C.S.D. Shop at P.A.F. Base Risalpur during February, 1991 to July, 1991 as is evident from the handing/taking over certificate dated 26-7-1991. The accused petitioner vide said certificate placed on record handed over the charge of his duty as In charge of C.S.D. Shop P.A.F. Risalpur on 24th July, 1991 to his successor Said Ghani. As such the arguments of the learned defence counsel that the accused petitioner did not remain posted as In charge of C.S.D. Shop P.A.F. Base Risalpur during February, 1991 to July, 1991 is without any force and substance.
' The record further reveals that a Court of enquiry consisting Major Anwar Husain, Deputy Zonal Manager North C.S.D. As President and Safdar Hussain Shah and Muhammad Tahir Manager C.S.D.
Shop Nowshera and Risalpur was also conducted. The said three officers after thorough scrutiny into matter fixed the responsibility of the misappropriated amount on the accused petitioner and it was recommended that the said amount be recovered from him. In such state of affairs the arguments of the learned defense counsel that no specific misappropriated amount was shown by the prosecution also holds no ground. The accused petitioner is charged for misappropriation of huge amount while abusing his official position as public servant. The offence under section 409 falls within the restrictive provision of section 497, Cr.P.C. The accused petitioner remained fugitive from law for a considerable period and he was declared as proclaimed offender by my learned predecessor in Court."
5. From a plain reading of the impugned order as well as from the perusal of the relevant record, I am convinced, in my mind, that the Special Judge has I A duly taken into consideration all the material facts of the case and after having done so has recorded a speaking order which of course is the result of proper application of mind.
6. Since the impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary, therefore, it is not liable to be interfered with.
7. Secondly, on a tentative assessme nt of the available record it is not at all possible from me to come to the conclusion that reasonable grounds do exist for believing that the petitioner has not committed the offence charge with. Accordingly, I hold that the discretion exercised by the Special Judge, in refusing bail, has been exercised legally/judiciously and is not liable to be set aside.
8. Thirdly, the reasons given by the Judge for not granting bail to the petitioner are quite sufficient/convincing and I do not want to upset the D impugned judgment.
9. If an authority is needed reliance can be placed on the case mentioned below:-- "Ijaz Ali Khan v. The State 1968 SCM R 1168(1).
' The petitioner who is charged with the offence of murder has been refused bail by the Courts below from which he now seeks leave to appeal.
' On examining the facts appearing in the order of the learned Judge in the High Court, we are inclined to the 'view that the conditions laid down in section 497, Cr.P.C. For refusing bail to the petitioner were amply fulfilled in this case. The petition is dismissed."
10. Accordingly, I am of the view that this bail petition is without any substance and is, therefore, dismissed.