1. ' Petitioner through this application has sought post-arrest bail in a case registered vide F.I.R. No,5 of 1999, dated 4-2-1999, under section 409/379/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2)147, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Police Station Anti-Corruption. Establishment, Lahore.
2. ' The prosecution case in brief is that an enquiry was conducted whereafter the aforestated case was registered at the instance of Mr. Khalid Mir Sub-Engineer with the allegations that Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo co-accused the then Chief Minister while residing at Chief Minister House, 7-Club Road GOR-I, Lahore, in the year 1995, got constructed a new building under the name of Phase-II for the marriage of his son the present petitioner. The construction work was specially entrusted to Mr. Nayar Ali Dada while the internal decoration, therefore, was executed by Mrs. Linda Niazi. The contract was given to Messrs Uni Builders and Rs,1,28,00,000 were spent on the marriage of the petitioner. Mrs. Linda Niazi was not only providing the decoration pieces but also helped the house-hold members of the Chief Minister in providing other articles. It is stated in the F.I.R. That these articles after their entry were entrusted to the house-hold members. It is further stated that after the dissolution of the Government of Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, co-accused the premises are checked and 22 item., were found missing valuing Rs,4,20,654. Similarly from Phase-I, articles worth Rs,6,557 were found missing. All the articles according to the complainant were taken away by the co-accused Mian Maznoor Ahmad Wattoo. Since Video T.V. Projector valuing Rs, one lac was very much liked by the petitioner as such the complainant expressed his suspicion that it was he who took the same. However, co-accused Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo denied that the same was given by Habib Contractor as a gift to the petitioner. It is also mentioned in the F.I.R. That this shortage of articles had also been pointed out in the Special Audit Report.
3. ' Bail is sought on the ground that the petitioner has been implicated in this belated F.I.R. In a mala fide manner simply because of his relationship with co-accused Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo. The F.I.R. In this case has been registered without holding any preliminary inquiry as envisaged under the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1995. A further argument has been advanced that section 409, P.P.C. Is not attracted to the facts of this case as there was no entrustment of any property to the petitioner. It has further been argued that the very reading of the F.I.R. Does not inspire confidence as the petitioner has simply been implicated on mere suspicion with the allegations that since T.V. Video Projector was mostly liked by him as such the same was taken by him.
4. ' Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of bail and has stated that the case has been registered after holding preliminary enquiry under Rules 6 and 7 of the Punjab Anti- Corruption Establishment Rules, 1995. The petitioner has been found implicated during the course of investigation. He has further pointed out that the recovery of incriminating Video Camera has been effected on 17-2-1999 from Ehsan Ilahi of Hall Road at the pointation of the petitioner whose statement recorded under section 161, P.P.C. On 13-3-1999 fully substantiates the same.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the entire facts of this case. It is reflected from the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. That the involvement of the petitioner has allegedly been claimed due to his liking for Video T.V. Projector respecting which only suspicion has been entertained by the complainant. The recovery of the incriminating articles is alleged to have been effected at the instance of the petitioner on 17-2-1989 and the number as well as make of the camera has been mentioned in the recovery memo. While in the purchase receipt dated 22-6-1995 issued in the name of Ch. Mahmood Habib the same is missing. It is admitted that the investigation has since been completed and the supplementary challan has already been submitted. Whether section 409, P.P.C. Is attracted or not in the facts of the case, I am not going to dilate upon this issue at this stage as this would be determined at the time of trial. Any dilation on this issue would have adverse effect on the case of either party. However, keeping in view the circumstances that there are mere suspicions against the petitioner and recovery memo. Does not tally with the receipt of the purchase, I am inclined to admit him to bail particularly so when as the evidence against him is documentary nature. Resultantly, I admit the petitioner to bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore.