2000 P Cr (PLP)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 497‑‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (I1 of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161‑‑‑Bail, grant of‑‑‑Complainant had sworn an affidavit exonerating the accused from the commission of the offence which was contrary to his earlier statement recorded under S.154, Cr:P.C.‑‑‑Such contradiction could not be lightly ignored as benefit of doubt was to be given to the accused even at bail stage‑‑‑Case against accused called for further inquiry in circumstances and he was allowed bail accordingly. Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja v. The State 1991 SCMR 111 rel. Mian Altaf‑ur‑Rehman for the State. ORDER The petitioner is involved in case F.I.R. No.43, dated 1‑6‑2000 for an offence under section 161, P.P.C. read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. According to the F.I.R., the petitioner had obtained a contract for the construction of Veterinary Research Institute, Ghazi Road, Lahore for a sum of Rs.3 lacs which he completed within the stipulated period and tendered a bill of Rs.2,50,000 and that he had to pay a slim of Rs.23,000 to Muhammad Ashraf petitioner for clearance of his bills and the petitioner was demanding an additional amount of Rs.3,000 for the release of 6th bill of Rs.11,000, the remaining having already been paid to the complainant. The complainant claimed that he did not want to pay bribe money and requested for legal action. A raiding party was constituted which proceeded under the supervision of a Magistrate and a tainted money consisting of three currency notes each of which denomination of Rs.1,000 were recovered from his possession on 1‑6‑2000, on, which the petitioner was formally arrested:

3. Earlier the bail was moved before the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption Punjab, Lahore which was dismissed vide his order, dated 28‑6‑2000 with the following observations:‑‑ "I have considered the contentions raised before me carefully and also gone through the record. On the written complaint of Muhammad Munir Butt, dated 1‑6‑2000, a raid was conducted under the supervision of the Magistrate. The petitioner was caught red‑handed while accepting the bribe money which was recovered from his possession. There appears no ulterior motive on the part of the members of the raiding party including the Magistrate to falsely involve the petitioner in the case. The affidavit of the complainant appears to be afterthought, as such I do not consider it safe and proper to place reliance on it. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and other ancillary circumstances, I am of the opinion, that the petitioner cannot be released on bail merely on the ground that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Consequently, his bail application is dismissed. However, the petitioner can repeat his prayer for bail after evidence of one or two material P.Ws. is recorded."

4. The bail is now pressed on the grounds that the case against the petitioner is wholly false and he has been maliciously involved on account of ulterior considerations and that the complainant's default in the construction was abridged by the petitioner who at his own cost had got the needful done for which the complainant who was avoiding payment and when compelled so to do; he got him trapped, and that the statement immediately made by the petitioner at the time of raid before the Magistrate is self‑explanatory and completely exonerates the petitioner and that the complainant himself appears to have responded to the call of his coercions and swore affidavit, dated 24‑6‑2000 exonerating the petitioner stating that the case had been launched purely on account of misunderstanding and that maximum punishment under section 161, P.P.C. is three years while under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is only seven years and as such the offence was not hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. and that the petitioner has got 4 years implanted record to his credit and that the investigation is complete and is no more required for that purpose.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the bail application for the reasons recorded by the learned Senior Special Judge, Anti -Corruption.

6. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments on both sides.

7. At the bail stage, to go deep into the merits of the case is not possible and whatsoever the material so far as has come on record consists of the simple statement of the complainant under section 154, Cr.P.C. and the affidavit containing deposition of the complainant himself contrary to the said statement. This is the circumstance which makes this case that of further 1 inquiry as such contradiction cannot be lightly ignored, as benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused even at bail stage.

8. In the case of Muhammad Nawaz alias Najja v. The State 1991. SCMR 111 where prosecution witnesses appeared in Court and were questioned by the Honourable Supreme Court and they supported averments made in their affidavits to the effect that the accused was not implicated in occurrence, the bail was allowed and petition was converted into appeal.

9. The same is the situation in this case. Hence, the petitioner is allowed bail subject to his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 E (Rupees fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. N.H.Q./M‑308/L Bail allowed.