1995 PLP 1829 (MLD)

Muhammad Shafiq Sub-Inspector, F.IA. Bahawalpur, made an application before Ghazi Amanullah Magistrate Ist Class, Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, for permission to raid a place under the supervision of a Magistrate on the ground that original material used for the installation of Sui gas was substituted by substandard material. The aforesaid Magistrate Ist Class directed Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Tehsildar (Revenue) to supervise the raid in accordance with law. Thereafter the raid was conducted. 200 pipes of the length of 20 feet each were found to be substituted by the substandard pipes. The substandard pipes were taken into possession by the Tehsildar and the Sub-Inspector F.IA. However, the original pipes were produced by Abid Rashid and Hafiz Muhammad Qasim, petitioners-accused. Mian Mushtaq Ahmad, Regional Manager, Bahawalpur Region, Bahawalpur, Irshad-ul-Haq Sub-Engineer and Muhammad Zafar Ullah Bhatti were also treated as the accused. F.I.R. No.7, dated 7-4-1995 was registered at Police Station F.IA., Bahawalpur under :section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under section 409/420/109, P.P.C. Mian Mushtaq Ahmad, Chief Engineer and Irshad-ul-Haq Sub-Engineer were admitted to pre-arrest bail while the three petitioners Abid Rashid, Hafiz Muhammad Qasim and Muhammad War Ullah Bhatti were not granted the said relief who were arrested and their bail application has been rejected by the Special Judge (Central), Multan with the reasoning that they are directly connected with the occurrence and that they have adversely affected the work of national interest which has caused huge loss to the Government. The three petitioners have filed this petition before this Court to try their luck to be admitted to bail.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned State Counsel and gone through the record before me. At the very outset I express my view on the authority published as Sarfraz and 2 others v. The State PLD 1974 Lah. 196 that if the Government property or national interest is involved in a case, it is no ground by itself for refusal of bail and that such considerations ordinarily are no bar to the grant of bail as there is no such prohibition under subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. The reasoning adopted by the lower Court has no blessings from the law of the land and by the yard stick contained under section 497, Cr.P.C. made effective by the legislature for the disposal of the bail applications.

3. It is also a case of transgression of authority on the part of Ghazi Aman Ullah EA.C./Magistrate 1st Class, Ahmadpur East who deputed Tehsildar (Revenue), Ahmadpur East to supervise the raid. In the relevant e field flee District Magistrate as the Ex-Officio Deputy Director Anti -Corruption of the District is competent to permit the police in such matters. Thus the very basis of the raid cannot be approved being without competence as the Authority granting the permission lacked jurisdiction thereof.

4. On merits I am in full agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners who canvassed before me that the petitioners are entitled to be admitted to bait as the recovery of the original pipes and the substandard pipes has admittedly been effected. The attraction of section 409, P.P.C. which falls within the prohibitory clause, is a question of further inquiry as there was no C defalcation/misappropriation of the original pipes which stand recovered to the full extent. The remaining sections do not fall within the prohibitory clause.' The further detention of these petitioners shall bring no salubrious effect on the prosecution case and rather their detention in the judicial lock-up would be a burden on the public exchequer. In the circumstances the contention of the learned State Counsel that due to the recitals of the F.I.R. these petitioners are not entitled to be admitted to bail need not be given the weight and this argument is ignored. Consequently I hold that it is a fit case wherein the petitioners should be admitted to bail than they are directed to remain in jail.

5. I, therefore, accept this application and admit these petitioners to bail in the sum of Rs.20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Central), Multan. N.H.Q./A-845/L Bail allowed.