1. ' Through this application, petitioner seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,12 of 2001 registered on 16-6-2001 at Police Station ACE Mianwali, under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5/2/47 P.C.A., on the complaint of Muhammad Akram.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the complainant of this case Muhammad Akram moved an application to the Circle Anti-Corruption, Mianwali, alleging that the petitioner was supplying wheat to the Food Department. Abdul Rehman Luqman, Inspector Food, used to tease him unnecessarily and demanded illegal gratification. According to the complainant, the petitioner/Food Inspector had already taken Rs,60,000 as illegal gratification in the presence of witnesses from him. He was asked to give Bardana on which he demanded an amount of Rs,10,000 as illegal gratification. The complainant claimed that he did not want to give illegal gratification SQ the raid be conducted. On the information of the complainant, raiding party was constituted which was headed by the Magistrate under whose supervision the amount was recovered from the petitioner.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case is false and has been got registered by the complainant due to personal grudge and enmity. He further contends that receiving of Rs,10,000 by the petitioner was admitted by the petitioner in his statement at the time of raid made before a Magistrate explaining that this amount was cost of Bardana which had to be deposited by the complainant in the Bank. As he failed to deposit the same, hence the petitioner had conic to receive the same and had received it and it is not illegal gratification as alleged by the complainant. He further contends that the offence mentioned in the F.I.R. Is not punishable with death or transportation of life or 10 years' R.I. Hence does not fall within the prohibitory clause and the petitioner is entitled to bail as a matter of rule, as has been held by the Supreme Court in case titled "Tariq Bashir and five others versus The State" (PLD 1995 SC 34). He further contended that the petitioner is Government servant and there are no chances of his absconsion. He further contended that the occurrence took place inside the shop and the Magistrate was far away, who could not hear the conversation between the complainant and the petitioner. Hence, it cannot be said that petitioner has received illegal gratification. He relied upon "Bashir Ahmed versus The State" (2001 SCM R 634). In such like circumstances, when the Magistrate had not heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused, the accused was acquitted. .
4. ' Learned State counsel has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner has been arrested in a raid conducted under the supervision of Magistrate. There are no chances of false implication of the petitioner in this case and the bail is liable to be refused.
5. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The petitioner admittedly is Food Inspector and was posted at Mianwali. At the relevant time, the fact mentioned in the complaint by the complainant has also been admitted that the Bardana was being supplied to the shop keepers and supplies for the supply of the wheat to the Food Department. It has also been admitted by the petitioner that at the time of raid lie had gone to the place of occurrence and had received an amount of Rs,10,000. Only difference in the prosecution case and the statement of the petitioner is whether the amount received by him is illegal gratification or an amount for the supply of Bardana. The complainant in this case had earlier made a statement before the Circle Inspector, Anti-Corruption, in which he alleged that the petitioner had already obtained Rs,60,000 as illegal gratification from him and was demanding Rs,10,000 as illegal gratification. So the case was registered, raiding party was constituted under the supervision of Magistrate who noted the number of notes and went to place of occurrence where the petitioner came and received the said amount and the said amount was recovered from him. The version of the complainant is more plausible and convincing in the peculiar circumstances of the case due to the reasons that the petitioner has failed to show any previous enmity or malice on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate him. The second point which comes in favour of the prosecution case is that the amount of Bardana was to be deposited in the bank and the petitioner was not required to go to the shop to receive the same from the shop keepers. The petitioner had his own office and was supposed to be there and the amount to be paid to the Government was to be deposited to the bank and was not to be paid to the officer as has been claimed by the petitioner. The version put forward by the petitioner is not at all convincing and reasonable. For the time being the prosecution has sufficient evidence on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and the explanation given by the petitioner is not sufficient for his exoneration from the case.
6. As far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences are not punishable A with death or transportation of life or 10 years' R.I. And grant of bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is concerned I have noticed that due to the corruption in the country the persons involved in corruption have not been dealt with iron hand. Previously due to this reason the corruption has spread over in this society. Grant of bail to the corrupt persons involved in illegal gratification even of case not falling within the prohibitory clause is an exception and not as a rule.
7. The case of the petitioner falls within the exception. As far as the contention by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Magistrate had not heard the conversation is concerned it has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the conversation was heard. The merits of the case cannot be gone into for the disposal of the bail application and the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not apply to the facts and circumstances of this case. The petitioner has failed to make out a case for the grant of bail.
8. ' This petition has no merits and is dismissed.