2014 PLP 1628 (SCMR)

ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.

Through this petition Fayyaz Ahmed petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 21-12-2012 passed by a learned Judge-in-Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Miscellaneous No.18046-B of 2012 whereby pre-arrest bail was refused to him in case F.I.R. No.2 registered at Police Station Anti-Corruption Establishment Sialkot on 23-1-2010 in respect of offences under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General, Punjab appearing for the State and the complainant in person and have gone through the relevant record of the case with their assistance.

3. The petitioner was the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Sambrial at the relevant time and the allegation against him is that he had registered a Power-of-Attorney attributed to the complainant whereas the complainant denies execution of any such Power-of-Attorney. It is not disputed that the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the relevant Power-of-Attorney and no allegation has so far been levelled with any particularity that the petitioner had accepted any illegal gratification in the matter. The Anti-Corruption Establishment had obtained verification regarding the relevant Power-of-Attorney from a Solicitor in the United Kingdom who had confirmed that it was the complainant who had thumb-marked the relevant Power-of-Attorney in his presence. It is nobody's case that the said Power-of-Attorney had been attested by any Notary Public/authorized officer or that the said Power-of -Attorney had been attested by any officer of the relevant Pakistani Consulate/High Commission in the United Kingdom and, thus, apparently the petitioner had registered the relevant Power-of-Attorney without being satisfied about its genuineness which prima facie could entail departmental action against the petitioner and we have been informed that a departmental inquiry had in fact been conducted into the matter wherein the petitioner had been exonerated and the inquiry had been dropped. The investigating officer present before the Court has informed that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and that nothing is to be recovered from his custody. The petitioner is a public servant and, thus, there is little likelihood of his absconsion in case of admission to bail. In the peculiar circumstances of the case insistence of the investigating officer upon arrest of the petitioner at this stage has been found by us to be unnecessary and, thus, smacking of bad faith.

4. For what has been discussed above we have found the case against the petitioner to be a fit case for his admission to pre-arrest bail at this stage. This petition is, therefore, converted into an appeal and the same is allowed and, consequently, Fayyaz Ahmed petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail in the above mentioned criminal case subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court within a period of two weeks from today.

5. Before parting with this order we may clarify that the observations made in the present order shall always be treated as tentative in nature and the same shall not prejudice the investigating officer or the learned trial Court in any manner. MWA/F-7/SC Bail granted.