2004 PLP 283 (MLD)

Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Petitioner. Raja Akhtar Zaman for the State. Date of hearing: 10th September, 2002. Through this application under section 497, Cr.P.C. the petitioner seeks his after arrest bail in case F. I. R. No. 18 of 2001, dated 18‑5‑2001 under sections 109/409/406/420/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 registered at Police Station Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Sargodha.

2. Brief allegations against the petitioner as alleged in the above-said F.I.R. are that co‑accused of petitioner Taj Muhammad became Incharge of Water Supply Scheme of a Village and the petitioner was member of the Committee constituted for this purpose and said Taj Muhammad being its Chairman received Rs.400 instead of Rs.5 as new connection fee and Rs.40 instead of Rs.15 as monthly rate of the water charges and thus Rs.3,20,000 have been misappropriated by said Incharge of the Water Supply Scheme and also due to non‑deposit of the bill of electricity supply was also cut‑off by the WAPDA.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner is innocent and a large number of villagers have appeared before the Investigating Officer and have categorically stated that the petitioners had not received any amount from any of the villagers. It is further contended that the petitioner has been arrayed in this case as an accused only being member of the Committee in paper while actually Taj Muhammad was sole Incharge of the Water Supply Scheme and he misappropriated the amount. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has not collected any evidence to connect the petitioner with alleged misappropriation of the amount. It is further contended that the complainant of this case has also sworn an affidavit to the effect that the petitioner` has not received any amount and he has not misappropriated any money.

4. The learned State counsel has opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner is guilty of misappropriation of the amount and even if the amount misappropriated was by his co -accused, he being silent is also responsible to grab the money of people.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. No doubt it is prima facie established that the petitioner was a member of the Committee which was made Incharge of the Water Supply Scheme by the Public Health Department and I also do not incline to accept the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner that the documents appointing the Committee is not signed by the petitioner, but the prosecution at the moment has failed to collect any evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged mis‑appropriation of the amount. No statement of any person has been recorded who can blame the petitioner of receiving any money from the villager and even no evidence has been collected to show that the co‑accused of petitioner had been paying any money to the petitioner and other members as a share of misappropriated money. Only being member of the Committee does not mean that every member of the Committee was involved in the alleged mis‑appropriation and the petitioner can only be said guilty if some reasonable evidence is collected by the prosecution directly or indirectly involving the petitioner in the crime whatsoever. In such circumstances at the moment the prosecution has no sufficient evidence in its possession to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offence. The case of petitioner is that of further inquiry and is covered by subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner is released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Anti‑Corruption, Sargodha. H.B.T./M‑2427/L Bail granted.