2023 P Cr (PLP)

FAHEEM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.

The applicant is seeking post arrest during the pendency of trial in a case registered against him through FIR 01/2020 of Police Station ACE, Thari Mirwah, under sections 161, 420, P.P.C. read with section 5(2), Act-II of 1947. Earlier, a plea of post arrest bail was declined by the trial Court through Order 16-09-2020.

2. I have heard the arguments advanced and have gone through the available record and enlightened from cited cases. From whatever argued and perused, I have observed as under: (a) The allegations against the applicant are that he had persuaded the complainant for arranging service of his son in Education Department being an Arabic teacher in a government school. Under such persuasion, the complainant Manghan Khan has handed over Rs. 20,000/- as bribe and it was settled that remaining Rs. 300,000/- shall be arranged after getting the order of appointment of his son. (b) The applicant is an Arabic teacher in a government high school and in that capacity, he has nothing to do with the process of hiring and appointment of any employee in Education Department. (c) Being an Arabic teacher, it is hard to believe that the applicant was able to pursue the complainant for appointment of his son in any capacity in the education department; as such this aspect requires further probe. (d) For the purpose of the arrest of the applicant, a trap was devised as such two memos were made; one for handing over of tainted money and the other for recovery and arrest of the applicant. It is pertinent to point out that the memo of arrest and recovery does not bear the number of tainted money, which makes the case against the applicant of further enquiry regarding recovery of the alleged tainted money. (e) The case against the applicant is also a case of further probe on account of the fact that at the time of arrest and the recovery of the alleged tainted money, the conversation was neither heard by the raiding magistrate nor the witnesses. As such, the purpose of handing over the said amount to the applicant remains dubious and it is not clear that the same was handed over as bribery. It becomes further doubtful on the ground that it has been alleged during the course of arguments that the said amount was in connection of a deal between the applicant and complainant for the sale of a motorcycle. (f) It has been alleged by the complainant in the body of FIR that the alleged amount of bribery was demanded by the applicant in presence of prosecution witness Sharafuddin. However, they said prosecution witness in his statement recorded under section 161, Cr.P.C. has totally denied such aspect of the case, which also casts doubt regarding the prosecution case.

3. In view of the above observation, I am confident in holding that the applicant is entitled for concession of bail, as such he was admitted to post bail in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) only and PR bond in the like amount to the entire satisfaction of the trial court through my short order dated 29-10-2020 and these are the reasons for the same.

4. Before parting, I would like to make it clear that if the applicant, after getting bail, remains absent from trial Court and if the trial Court is satisfied about his absconding, then the trial Court will be competent to take every action against the applicant and his surety including cancellation of bail without referring to this Court.

5. It is clarified that all of the above observations are purely tentative and will have no bearing upon the case of either party during trial. SA/A-120/Sindh Bail granted.