P L D 1982 Peshawar 128 (PLP)

M..Sardar Khan for Appellant. S. Ibni Ali Addl. A. G. for the State. Date of hearing : 16th June, 1982. By this order, I propose to dispose of Cr. Misc. No. 351/82 and Cr. Misc. No. 352/82 arising out of two separate orders of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Peshawar pertaining to case FIR No. 16 dated 18-12-1981 and F.I.R. No. 3, dated 17-2-1982 registered against the petitioner under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with section 5 (2) of the Preven tion of Corruption Act, 1947. Arguments remained confined to identical question in both the petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the record and contended that no doubt there had been some slackness on the part of the petitioner in depositing the amount at a proper time due to rush of work, it is yet to be determined whether he was directly responsible for embazzlement and misappropriation of the public money in question. He also produced letter No. D (ADA) 765-B/3182-85, dated 1-6-1982 and stated that even the Managing Director has already approached the Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, N.-W.F.P. Peshawar informing him that as the departmental action against the petitioner is in progress he may not pursue the criminal cases registered against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the State from the opposite argued that the petitioner is involved in misappropriation and embazzlement of large amount of public money and direct evidence is available in that connection against him. He, however, admitted that the investigation is complete and there is no likelihood of tampering with the relevant record by the petitioner at this stage. No doubt the amount involved is sufficiently large but this fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail particularly when the investigation is complete and commencement of trial is likely to take considerable time as it happens in such like cases. It would serve no useful purpose if the petitioner is kept behind the bar for indefinite period being a public servant because as al rule bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. So far as the question of prohibition contained in sub-clause (1) of section 497, Cr. P. C. is concerned the Court is not supposed to keep in vie only the maximum sentence provided under the relevant law but shall, while taking into consideration, the facts of a particular case, consider the punish ment which is likely to be ultimately awarded. As a rule facts of a case for the purpose of refusing bail should not be stretched so as to put the matter within the prohibition contained is sub-clause (1).of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For the reasons stated above, I admit the petitioner to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (one lac) with two sureties each in each case to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Duty Magistrate. S. A. H. Bail al/owed.