The petitioner through the instant petition seeks to place on record his address. According to his learned counsel, his address in the main bail petition is incomplete and that is why the necessity arose to him to move the instant petition containing his complete address, It has been requested that the application may be accepted and his address furnished with the instant petition may be treated as part of the said main bail petition.
3. The learned State Counsel has no objection to the acceptance of the instant petition.
4. Allowed.
MAIN CASE Messrs Mian Arshad Latif and Ch. Shafi Muhammad Tariq for Petitioner.
Iftikhar Ibrahim Qureshi for the State.
Khalid Ayub, H.C. P.S. A.C.E., Sahiwal with record.
The petitioner Mehmood Hussain Anjum seeks after arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.36 dated 3-9-2002, under section 161, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act No.II of 1947, Police Station A.C.E., Sahiwal.
6. Briefly the prosecution case as per F.I.R. Is that he as Civil Defence Officer had demanded monthly Rs.1,000 as illegal gratification from the complainant Khurshid Ahmad and on 3-9-2002 tainted money Rs.1,000 received as illegal gratification by him has been recovered from the drawer of his office table.
7. It has been contended on his behalf that he has falsely been roped in; that neither anybody has seen him demanding illegal gratification from the complainant nor receiving the tainted money from him; that in fact the complainant has secretly managed to keep the tainted money in the drawer of his office table and it was all pre-planned; that in any case the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. And in such-like cases the grant of bail is rule and refusal an exception, while no exceptional circumstance has been brought forth to justify the refusal and in support of the same reliance has been placed upon the case of Muhammad Akbar Khan v. The State and others 2000 YLR 358, Kodomal and others v. The State 2001 PCr.LJ 1789 and Abdul Karim Baloch v. The State 2000 PCr.LJ 1591 Karachi; and that he is behind the bars since 3-9- 2002 and is previous non --convict.
8. Conversely the learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on the ground that he has not only demanded illegal gratification from the complainant but has also received the tainted money as such and the same was recovered from the drawer of his office table, so he is sufficiently connected with the alleged crime.
9. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced from both the sides with the help of the available record.
10. The fact remains that he is behind the bars for the last more than two months and the investigation is complete. According to the learned State Counsel he is not wanted for any further purpose of the same.
11. Admittedly the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. In the cases cited above, the accused/petitioners were allowed bail on such consideration. Hence relying upon the same, I find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.
12. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge Anti-- Corruption, Multan.