2006 PLP 1765 (MLD)

KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.

By this order I will dispose of Criminal Bail Applications Nos.399 of 2006, 404 of 2006, 405 of 2006 and 412 of 2006 as they arise out of the same F.I.R. and involve the identical questions. Brief facts of the case for the purpose of deciding the listed bail applications are that on 1-5-2006, A.S.-I. Irshad Ali Channa of Police Station Kamber, on behalf of the State, lodged the F.I.R. stating therein, that he received letter, dated 24-4-2006 from Deputy Inspector General of Police Larkana in respect of enquiry report of Malkhana of Police Station Kamber and as per inquiry it was ordered that a case be registered against WHC Gaji Bux Solangi, WASI Saadulah Khushik, WPC-Behram Khan Mangi, WHC Allah Rakhio Hulio, WHC Nazir Hussain Kalhoro and WPC Zulfiqar Ali Soomro. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that during a period from 2003 to 2006 certain properties lying in the Malkhana were misappropriated by the applicants. Heard Messrs Aftab Ahmed Gorar, Muhammad Ayaz Soornro, Safdar Ali Bhuttto, and Shah Muhammad Shar Advocates for the applicants and Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State counsel. ? It was contended by the learned Advocates for the parties that the local police lodged the F.I.R. and after lodgment of the same it was not sent to Anti-Corruption Police for investigation which is mandatory requirement of law. It was further contended that some of the police personnel nominated in the F.I.R. have never been handed over the charge of Malkana and in support of this contention they relied upon correspondence between S.H.Os. of the concerned Police Station with the high-ups. It was further contended that entire evidence against the applicants is based on documents which are already in possession of the prosecution and there is no apprehension of any manipulation in it. The learned Advocate, in support of his contention, relied on the case of Ijaz Ahmad v. State (1978 SCMR 64), Hayat Muhammad v. State (1983 SCMR 551), Hussain Haqani v. State (2000 PCr.LJ 161), Saeed Ahmed v. State (1996 SCMR 1132), Sabir Hussain v. State (1999 PCr.LJ 958) and Bashir Ahmed v. State 2002 MLD

746. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Bhutto, learned State counsel conceded to the above position that in the present case police has wrongly investigated the matters and after registration of F.I.R. they ought to have referred the matters for investigation to Anti-Corruption Police who can submit the challan after investigation to concerned Court of Anti-Corruption. I have taken into consideration respective argument advanced by the learned Advocates and perused the record. In the case of Bashir Ahmed v. State (Supra) my learned brother Sarmad Jalal Osmani-J in the identical circumstances quashed the F.I.R. in the case of Saeed Ahmad v. State (Supra) the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan granted bail on the ground that the matter is based on documentary evidence and such documents are in possession of the prosecution. It is yet to be decided whether police has rightly investigated the matters particularly, in view of Rule 11(5) of Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Rules, 1993 which provide that when a case is registered at local police station the District Police shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever to continue the investigation and relevant record shall be made over to the Anti-Corruption Establishment and whether applicants in fact have been handed over the charge of Malkhana and whether out of so many persons appointed from 2003 till 2006, who had misappropriated the properties from the Malkhana. The applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.100,000 each and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court. H.B.T./N-25/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail granted.