' Firdaus Ahmad Khan, petitioner, Ex-Steno-Typist Land Acquisition Collector, PDA, Peshawar has been arrested and is under detention in case F.I.R. No.6 registered with Police Station Anti- Corruption Establishment, Peshawar on 14-10-2000 for offences under sections 420/468/471 P.P.C./5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. The petitioner applied for grant of bail to Special Judge Anti-Corruption N.-W.F.P. Peshawar but his request was turned down vide order dated 7-6-2003. The petitioner has approached this Court with the similar prayer.
3. The precise allegation against the petitioner is that he got encashed a Cheque bearing No.EAF/445618 dated 19-11-1998 for Rs..4,81,000 in the name of Muhammad Hanif Khan complainant LAC, PDA under his own signature.
4. Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate for the petitioner contends, inter alia, that the amount of Rs.4,81,000 was withdrawn on a genuine cheque duly verified by Noor Amin, an official of the bank and the said amount is stated to have been paid back, which fact by itself makes the case doubtful and calls for an inquiry as to whether any criminal misconduct has been committed and if so by whom. Also adds that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case as no evidence is available on record to connect him with the offences charged again him.
' Additionally submits that sections 420/468/471 P.P.C. Are not attracted in the case and the offences in question do not fall within prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on following citations:--
(i) Saeed Ahmad petitioner v. The State respondent (1995 SCM R 170).
(ii) Shamrez Khan petitioner v. The State respondent (2000 SCM R 157).
(iii) Anwar Zada applicant v. The State respondent (2001 PCr.LJ 730 Karachi).
(iv) Abdul Qudus applicant v. The State respondent (2002 PCr.LJ 430 Karachi.)
5. The bail application has been opposed by the learned State counsel on the ground that sufficient material has been brought on the record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence and bail has been refused for valid reasons which hardly call for interference of this Court.
6. Admittedly the amount of Rs.4,81,000 has been deposited and loss has been made good. This fact alone makes the case doubtful and necessitates for an inquiry to determine guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner is a public servant and as such, there is no apprehension of his tampering with the prosecution case. There is also no likelihood of his abscondence. The petitioner is in jail ever since his arrest on 7-6-2003. Evidently, entire evidence collected by the prosecution is based on documents which are in possession of the prosecution. The bail is opposed principally on the ground that petitioner might tamper with the evidence if enlarged on bail. If the petitioner abuses the to him the State can prosecute its remedies in the Court concerned but at this stage in the absence of evidence in support of this allegation, I cannot refuse bail, and there is no such evidence. The involvement of the petitioner in commission of offence is yet to be established at the time of trial. Tariq Bashir and five others v. The State (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34).
7. In view of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner has succeeded to make out a prima facie case for grant of bail. The application is allowed and the petitioner is enlarged on bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.100,000 (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption N.-W.F.P., Peshawar.
8. I had allowed bail to the petitioner on 15-9-2003 for reasons to be recorded later. Above are the reasons.