ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

                                            Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S-  932   of   2017                                  

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

08.01.2018.

Mr. Aijaz Shaikh, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Abdul Majeed Magsi, Advocate for complainant.

Mr. Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, D.P.G. for the State.

                                    =

Through instant bail application, applicant seeks post arrest bail in Crime No.12 of 2017, registered with police station ACE, Hyderabad for offence u/s 161, 201, 406 PPC r/w Section 5(2) Act-II, 1947.

2.         Precisely, relevant facts are that on allegation of the complainant of FIR No.91/2017 u/s 302 PPC of PS Matli to the effect that present applicant / accused demanded gratification of Rs.85,000/- for investigation purpose, he (the applicant) was booked and arrested. He is in custody since five months.

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the offence is not falling within prohibitory clause hence in view of Tarique Bashir’s case reported in PLD 1995 SC 34, applicant is entitled for concession of bail.

4.         At this juncture, learned D.P.G. contends that the present applicant has been arrested second time due to misuse of authority and negligence in conducting investigation of heinous cases however did not dispute the entitlement of applicant / accused to bail on count of principle, enunciated in referred case. Against this, on this learned counsel for the applicant contends that he (applicant/accused) may not be assigned police station or investigation of any case pending determination of guilt or innocence of the applicant / accused.

5.         Heard the respective sides and perused the available material.

6.         Admittedly, offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause; involvement of the applicant / accused second time on same allegation may be a circumstance for disentitling him of concession of bail but this alone would not operate as a bar to concession of bail if otherwise applicant /accused is entitled for bail because law, by now is settled that bail cannot be withheld as punishment merely on allegation (s). The prosecution does not claim the applicant / accused to have been found guilty rather allegation (s) are yet to be proved by the court of law. The applicant / accused has been in continuous detention for last five months and , per counsel for the applicant / accused, the trial is yet to start, which advances the case of applicant / accused for grant of bail in a case not falling within prohibitory clause of Section 497(i) Cr.PC. Further, the counsel for the applicant / accused has consented to place an embargo on entrusting the applicant / accused to such like duties thereby eliminating least lessening the possibility of repeating of the offence which also tilts the scale in favour of the applicant / accused.

7.         Accordingly, applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees one lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However DIGP, Hyderabad and IGP Sindh shall ensure that the applicant shall not be assigned any police station or investigation of any case. He however can be assigned other duties not involving general public as well those which could directly allow the applicant / accused to misuse his authority for any illegal purposes. At this juncture learned counsel for the applicant contends that authorities may lift this embargo after decision of the case pending before the Anti Corruption Court, which being valid and justified is agreed. Order accordingly.

JUDGE

Tufail