The petitioner has sought his pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.75 of 2000, dated 18-4-2000 registered under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, read with section 161, P.P.C., at Police Station Anti---Corruption Establishment, Multan.
2. The criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the application of A.I Sher, who was serving as a contractor at District Council, Vehari, where the petitioner was posted as Sub- Engineer. The relevant facts leading to the present F.I.R. Are that according to the complainant, the petitioner had received Rs.8,000 by way of bribe, for passing of a bail worth Rs.1,50,000. According to the complainant, he paid Rs.8,000 to the petitioner and promised to pay Rs.2,000 subsequently and for this grievance the complainant moved an application before the Anti-Corruption Establishment.
3. Ghulam Mustafa Rahat, Assistant Director (Legal), Anti---Corruption, present in Court with record, states that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his statement has been recorded on 19-4-2001.
4. The main stress of the petitioner is that he is innocent and he was involved in this case falsely because he had raised certain objection on the working of A.I Sher contractor. He further states that A.I Sher complainant moved an application against the petitioner on 26-3-1999, while the payment had already been made through a valid cheque on 25-3-1999. He also stated that previously the matter was investigated by two Circle Officers of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, Vehari, namely Abdul Majeed Chishti and Abdul Razzaq. Both of them have found the allegation of bribe against the petitioner false and recommended for initiation of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. '
5. The Assistant Director (Legal), Anti-Corruption, Multan, has conceded the abovementioned facts and has also informed the Court that the matter is still under investigation but there is no evidence whatsoever available against the petitioner so far and the- inquiry reports of the two Circle Officers, who had exonerated the petitioner, hold field.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record minutely. I am conscious of the fact that the matter pertains to pre-arrest bail, which is an extraordinary relief but I, am inclined to extend the same in favour of the petitioner as in the circumstances of the case, the arrest of the petitioner would be unjustified. He stands exonerated by the two Circle Officers/I.Os.
There is only one statement of the complainant viz-a---viz the statement of the petitioner before the ACE. The statement of the petitioner would be considered under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The petitioner is a public servant, who is not likely to jump over the bail or escape from the trial.
7. In the circumstances, I confirm ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner vide order dated 13-4-2001. However, he is directed to join the investigation as and when required by the officers of the Anti---Corruption Establishment. In case he does not join the investigation, the State would be at liberty to move for the cancellation of bail.
H.B.T./M-597/L