2000 PLP 905 (YLR)

Pir S. A. Rashid for Petitioner. Miss Nausheen Taskeen for the State, Criminal Miscellaneous 1 of 1999 Dispensation sought for is allowed. Disposed of. Criminal Miscellaneous 5368‑B of 1999.

2. Muhammad Ikram petitioner is an accused person in case F.I.R. No.92 registered at Police Station Directorate of Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Lahore on 15‑9‑1998 for an offence under section 5‑C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had constructed a house in Angoori Bagh, Lahore and the value of the said house was disproportionate to the known sources of income of the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested by the Anti‑Corruption Establishment in connection with this case on 28‑4‑1999. Subsequently his successive applications for bail were dismissed by the learned Special Judge Anti‑Corruption, Lahore vide orders, dated 10‑7‑1999 and 11‑9‑1999 respectively. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the record it has been noticed that the principal accused of this case has already been admitted to bail by the learned Trial Court vide order, dated 3‑3‑1999. The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner does not attract the prohibitory clause contained in subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. In such cases grant of bail is generally a rule and its refusal merely an exception. The mainstay of the petitioner's case is that the house in question had been got constructed by the petitioner's wife through her own resources as well as with the financial help of her brother. The petitioner has already submitted some evidence before the Anti‑Corruption Establishment in support of his said assertion. The challan in this case has already been submitted and, therefore, continued custody of the petitioner is no A longer required for the purposes of investigation.

4. The onus to disprove an offence under section 5‑C of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 lies on the accused person and in order to dislodge or disprove an allegation in that respect the accused surely has to make arrangements and efforts to B procure and produce the relevant evidence in support of his explanation to be tendered in such a case. Incarceration of such an accused person during the period of his trial is surely to make him handicapped in putting forward his defence. It is settled law that whenever it is necessary for an accused person to explain his position before the learned Trial. Court with the help of record then, after completion of investigation, he should be treated favourably in the matter of bail so as to C provide him sufficient opportunity to satisfactorily put forward his defence. The law of bail is not to be construed and applied in a manner which puts a party to the case in a more disadvantageous or prejudicial position than the other. After all a Court is expected to put the prosecution and the defence on are even keel at all stages of a criminal case.

5. For what has been discussed above the present petition is allowed and the p petitioner is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 (rupees one hundred thousand only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. N.H.Q./M‑1294/L Bail allowed.