2016 PLP 2638 (YLR)

SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ, J.

Through instant post arrest bail application, applicant Kamal Din Kandhro has impugned order dated 16.07.2015, passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Sukkur, whereby his earlier bail application was dismissed.

2. Relevant facts spelt out from FIR are that the alleged offence was committed during the last several years and after conducting enquiry, Interim Challan was submitted on 07.07.2015, and subsequently, final Challan was submitted on 30.09.2015 against 34 accused and out of them, 27 accused have been shown on bail, whereas 06 accused shown as absconders, while present applicant is shown in custody.

3. Learned counsel for applicant contended that during the commission of alleged offence, present applicant was posted as Junior Clerk in the Office and subsequently, he was promoted as Senior Clerk, and he had not granted any land with his signatures. Learned counsel also placed original Service Book of applicant before the Court, which is seen and returned after placing the photo copy of the same on record and copy whereof has also been supplied to the learned APG. Learned counsel further contended that the alleged offence does not fall within the Prohibitory Clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. and all the other co-accused have already been granted interim pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court, and only present applicant was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 22.06.201(sic), while 06 private accused are still at large; that during his entire service, no criminal case or complaint has ever been registered against him and he is a sole male member maintaining his entire family; that he is about 58 years old and also suffering from certain diseases.

4. Learned APG contended that applicant being Mukhtiarkar Estate had issued one revised T.O. Form for the land from 16-00 to 28-29 acres; hence he had committed the alleged offence. However, he candidly submitted that other co-accused have been granted interim pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court on same allegations.

5. I have perused the material available on record and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties which emanate that the alleged offence was committed during the intervening period of 2004 to 2009 and after a longest enquiry, FIR has been lodged by the complainant without assigning any plausible explanation for the delay of 6 years for lodgment of FIR and even no specific role has been assigned to the present applicant in FIR regarding the commission of alleged forgery.

6. Indeed, final Challan has already been submitted before the trial Court and applicant is no more required to the police for further investigation. Conversely, 6 co-accused being influential persons of the locality, to whom lands were granted and they are main beneficiaries, have not been arrested by the Investigating Officer and they are shown as absconders. As entire prosecution case is based on the documentary evidence and all the relevant documents are in custody of prosecution and there is no apprehension of tampering with the prosecution evidence, therefore, further detention of applicant in Jail, will not serve any useful purpose. Reliance is placed on the case of Saeed Ahmed v. The State (1996 SCMR 1132).

7. The alleged offence under section 467, P.P.C. is punishable up to 10 years and offences under sections 420, 468 and 477, P.P.C. are punishable up to 07 years. It is for the trial Court to thresh out the truth by recording evidence of PWs and determine the nature of guilt of each accused separately keeping in view of the documentary evidence produced by the prosecution during the trial. It is well settled that while examining the question of bail, Court should consider the minimum aspect of the sentence provided for the alleged offence in the schedule and bail cannot be withheld as a punishment.

8. For the foregoing reasons and circumstances, applicant has succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as envisaged under Section 497(2), Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs.200,000/- and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. However, in case of misuse of concession of bail learned trial Court will be at liberty to cancel the bail of applicant/accused and to initiate action against his surety in accordance with the law.

9. The above observations are tentative in nature and will not influence upon the merits of the case. RR/K-24/Sindh Application allowed.