2008 PLP 2811 (YLR)

KHAWAJA NAVEED AHMED, J.

Applicant Muhammad Akram was arrested by Anti-Corruption Police in case F.I.R. No.20 of 2008. The complainant Raja Saghir Hussain has lodged F.I.R. on 31-5-2008 with Anti-Corruption Police stating therein that he had lodged F.I.R. No.315 of 2008 at Police Station Korangi Karachi against Rafique Ahmad son of Abdul Hameed, with whom he had transaction in respect of purchase of plot. A.S.-I. Muhammad Akram Qaimkhani has arrested accused Rafique and two other nominated persons and had demanded Rs.20,000 from the complainant for the job. Complainant allegedly refused to pay Rs.20,000 whereupon the said A.S.-I. had released all the three accused and started pressurizing the complainant to compromise the case with Rafique Ahmed and others. It is alleged that complainant had paid Rs.2,000 to A.S.-I. who had asked him to bring 10,000 more. The complainant agreed and had promised to bring the money at 6-7 p.m. on 31-5-2008. The complainant along with Anti-Corruption Police reached to the A.S.-I. and had paid Rs.10,000 to the A.S.-I. in presence of Anti-Corruption Establishment Police and Magistrate. The applicant was caught red-handed. The A.S.-I. had thrown the amount on the ground which was picked up by the raiding party. The raid report of the Magistrate discloses that accused took out Pistol in order to kill the Magistrate and the raiding party. However, he was overpowered. The learned trial Court has taken serious view of the behaviour of the A.S.-I. at the time of his arrest and has rejected the bail application. The learned trial Court has relied upon 2000 SCMR Page 1797. It is mentioned that an accused for an offence which does not fall within the prohibitory clause under section 497 Cr.P.C. can not claim concession of bail as a right. The learned State Counsel Mr. Haji Abdul Majeed, states that the conduct of the A.S.-I. is uncalled for. However, there is allegation that he had tried to take out the Pistol but he has actually not taken out the Pistol. He states that heavy surety amount be fixed in case Court is granting bail. Mr. Saleem Akhtar, learned Additional Prosecutor General, has opposed the bail merely on the conduct of the A.S.-I. As far as, merits of the case are concerned, he agrees to the legal proposition that case does not fall within the prohibitory clause to section 497 Cr. P. C. I have hared learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order of the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption (Provincial) Karachi. I am in agreement with the authority produced by the learned Special Judge in his order dated 6-6-2008. However, the bail in the cases which are not covered with prohibitory clause to section 497 Cr.P.C. can be refused only when exceptional circumstances exist. In the present case, the exceptional circumstance is an attempt on the part of the accused to resist his arrest by attempting to take out his official Pistol. However, there is allegation as well as denial from both sides. The conduct of the accused at the time of arrest requires further inquiry and as such I grant bail to the accused upon his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. H.B.T./M-114/K Bail granted.