-Bail after arrest, grant of-.of negligence, counsel for petitioner has pointed out that petitioner twice brought into notice of M.S. through written applications qua need for repair of CCTV system prior to registration of FIR, which fact reflects his bona fides--Assertion of counsel for petitioner qua moving of applications by petitioner qua CCTV repair could not be controverted by Law Officer on factual side--

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 145

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471--Prevention of Corruption Act, (II of 1947), S. 5(2)--Bail after arrest, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of--Corruption/ financial embezzlement in purchase of medicines etc.--Charge against petitioner- of negligence, counsel for petitioner has pointed out that petitioner twice brought into notice of M.S. through written applications qua need for repair of CCTV system prior to registration of FIR, which fact reflects his bona fides--Assertion of counsel for petitioner qua moving of applications by petitioner qua CCTV repair could not be controverted by Law Officer on factual side--All these circumstances indeed make case of petitioner one of further inquiry as contemplated under provisions of Section 497(1) of Cr.P.C and in turn entitling him to grant of relief claimed not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right--Bail allowed.          [Para 3] A

Syed Jaffar Tayyar Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Ansar Yaseen, Deputy Prosecutor General with Shahid Nazir Warraich, Circle Officer, ACE Lodhran for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15.3.2022.

 PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 145
[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]
Present: Shakil Ahmed, J.
MUHAMMAD IBRAHEEM--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 1138-B of 2022, decided on 15.3.2022.

Order

Instant petition has been filed under Section 497, Cr.P.C. by Muhammad Ibraheem petitioner seeking post arrest bail in case FIR No. 15 of 2020 dated 29.12.2020 registered at Police Station ACE, Lodhran for the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, PPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Earlier application of the petitioner for the same relief was dismissed by learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Court, Multan vide order dated 25.10.2021.

2. Fleard and perused the record.

3. One Shakil Kamran moved an application before Chief Executive Officer (Health), Lodhran, whereby he pointed out corruption/financial, embezzlement in purchase of medicines, etc committed mainly by Dr. Iftikhar Ahmad, Medical Superintendent THQ Hospital, Kehror Pacca in connivance with co-accused Muhammad Wajid Purchase Officer, Muhammad Zulqarnain Budget and Finance Officer, Ejaz Hussain Junior Clerk, Zain-ul-Haq of Al-Haq Medical Store and Kashif Nawaz Ward Servant. On said application, inquiry was conducted and matter was also forwarded to Anti-Corruption Establishment and ultimately FIR was registered. Petitioner was implicated in this case on the charge that he played active role in financial embezzlement being member of purchase committee and also committed negligence by not keeping in order CCTV system. It may not be out of context to mention here that role of financial embezzlement as per the complaint initially filed by Shakil Kamran, was mainly of Doctor Iftikhar Ahmad, Medical Superintendent and five others. Petitioner’s name was not amongst said five co-accused initially named in the complaint. Learned Law Officer has failed to controvert that inquiry in this case was conducted by Director Health Services, Bahawalpur Division, who vide report/ letter No. DHS/CC/86/No. 252 BWP dated 27.01.2021 exonerated the petitioner from the charges. As regards charge against petitioner of negligence, learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that petitioner twice brought into notice of M.S. through written applications qua need for repair of CCTV system prior to registration of FIR, which fact reflects his bona fides. Assertion of learned counsel for petitioner qua moving of applications by petitioner qua CCTV repair could not be controverted by learned Law Officer on factual side. All these circumstances indeed make the case of petitioner one of further inquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Section 497(1) of Cr.P.C and in turn entitling him to grant of relief claimed not as a matter of grace but as a matter of right.

4. For the reasons recorded above, petition in hand is allowed and petitioner is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

(A.A.K.)          Bail allowed