Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS Respondent: THE STATEHonorable Justice Shah Jehan Khan YousafzaiAbdul Latif Afridi and Arshad Hussain
2012 Y L R 1991
[Peshawar]
Before Shah Jehan Khan Yousafzai, J
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54 of 2011, decided on 19th February, 2011.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.161/109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Taking illegal gratification, abetment---Bail, grant of---Offence under S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was punishable with three years imprisonment or fine and did not fall under the restrictive part of 5.497, Cr. P. C. ---Possibility was that the Trial Court could punish accused with fine only---Keeping accused behind the bars, would serve no purpose to the prose cution---Accused was a civil servant and had served the WAPDA for the last twenty years, with no allegation of corruption---No possibility of abscondence of accused in view of his prolonged service in WAPDA; and he was no more required for investigation---Keeping in view lesser punishment in the shape of fine, accused was admitted to bail---Bail was granted.
Abdul Latif Afridi and Arshad Hussain for Petitioner.
Muhammad Jamil Khan for the State.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 2011.
JUDGMENT
SHAH JEHAN KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.---Accused-petitioner Muhammad Ashraf facing prosecution in case F.I.R. No.1 dated 1-1-201.1 under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with sections 161 and 109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station FIA Crime Circle, Peshawar was refused bail by the learned Special Judge Central, Anti-Corruption and Emigration, Khyber Pukhtoon Khwa, Peshawar vide his order dated 6-1-2011. Now he has approached this Court for his release on bail through the instant petition.
2. The allegation against the accused-petitioner who is serving as Lineman in WAPDA, is that on 1-1-2011 he while receiving Rs.25,000 from the complainant Sher Rehman as illegal gratification/bribe in order to protect him from heavy fine regarding his electricity Meter, was arrested red-handed by the raiding party of FIA Crime Circle, Peshawar under the supervision of Mr.Tariq Abbas Judicial Magistrate, Peshawar.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State and have also perused the record.
4. Without going into deep merits of the prosecution case, suffice it to say, that the offence under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is punishable with three years imprisonment or fine. For disposal of a prayer for grant of bail, Courts are always taken into account the lesser punishment provided for the offence subject to its nature. In the instant case, there is possibility that the trial Court may punish him with fine only, therefore, keeping him behind the bars will serve no purpose to the prosecution.
5. The petitioner, who is a civil servant and has served the WAPDA for the last twenty years, with no allegation of corrupt practice. Though the petitioner was tide over while receiving Rs.25,000 as bribe but he has refused to confess and has given a counter-version exonerating himself from the charges. There is no possibility of abscondence of the petitioner in view of his prolonged service in WAPDA and he is no more required for investigation. The offence does not fall under the restrictive part of section 497, Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the lesser punishment in the shape of fine, I am inclined to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.
6. This petition for bail is accepted and the accused-petitioner is admitted to bail provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge Central Anti-Corruption and Emigration, Khyber Pukhtunkhwa, Peshawar, who shall ensure that the sureties must be local, reliable and men of means.
7. Before parting with this order, I direct the trial court to conclude the trial within a month and if the prosecution succeeds in establishing guilt of the petitioner, he shall be awarded appropriate punishment.
8. Above are the reasons of my short order announced on 15-2-2011.
H.B.T./201/P Bail granted.