Case Law, Bail Anti Corrution

Citation Name : 2002 YLR 2764 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : UMAR DIN LODHI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409/420/467/468/471-A/34 --- Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail ---Offences pertained to the years 1992 to 1996 and the accused was posted as ADM in the year 1995, hence the whole of the period shown in the F.I.R. could not be put to his account---Act of the accused relating to his period of posting was found in the two departmental inquiries conducted against him to be an irregularity in drawing the Government funds in excess to the sanctioned amount and not an embezzlement of the same---Investigation was complete and the challan had been submitted in the Court--Accused who was a retired Government servant was no more required for any further investigation---Involvement of huge amount in the case could not be made a ground for refusing the bail ---Two co-accused had already been granted bail ---Accused had pleaded mala fides on the part of the anti corruption Police at the behest of the complainant due to his personal ill-will--Record and all documents being in the possession of the prosecution, there was no chance of tampering with the evidence--Accused had not misused the concession of interim pre-arrest bail granted to him more than one and a half years back and the same was confirmed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1659 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : WASI HAIDER
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497(2)'---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109 & 34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Amount involved in case though was substanti al but that fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail to accused especially when that huge amount was encashed during tenure of other officer---Case of accused was identical with case of co-accused who had been released on bail ---Rule of consistency demand that bail concession was also granted to accused as bail could not be withheld as a punishment to accused---Investigation had already been completed and accused were no, more required for investigation and it was a rule in matter of grant of bail in such cases to grant the bail and to refuse was an exception---Case being fit for further inquiry, accused were admitted to bail .


Citation Name : 2002 MLD 746 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMED
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 561-A & 497---Sindh Inquiry an anti -corruption Act (IV of 1991), Preamble, Ss.3, 9) & 11---conversion of application under S.497, Cr.P.C. into the one under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. Quashing , of F.I.R.---F.I.R. containing allegations of corruption and misconduct was directly lodged with the police station by a police officer against the accused who was a civil servant despite an anti -corruption police station was available in the locality---In terms of S.3 of Sindh Enquiry and anti -corruption Act, 1991 only the anti -corruption Department had jurisdiction to enquire into allegation of corruption against a civil servant---Preamble of the Act had also provided for the constitution of a special agency for investigation of offences relating to corruption by or inquiry into misconduct of public servant---F.I.R. lodged by Police Authorities against the accused who was a public servant, suffered from a basic legal defect and it was totally without jurisdiction while competent anti -corruption Police Station was available in the locality---Court converted application of bail into an application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and quashed the F.I.R. with direction to Police Authorities to adopt the proper procedure as provided under Sindh Inquiry and anti -corruption Act, 1991.

itation Name : 2001 MLD 1680 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : YOUSAF IQBAL
Side Opponent : THE STATEA
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S,5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161---bail , grant of---Accused being an employee of WAPDA, anti -corruption Establishment had no jurisdiction to register and investigate the case---Record of the case had been sent to Federal Investigating Agency for its investigation as per observations of the High Court---Complainant from whom amount was allegedly received by the accused as illegal gratification had exonerated the accused from the allegation---Was not clear as to when the investigation in case would be completed by the Authority and what would be the result of that investigation---bail was granted to the accused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2001 MLD 219 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : STATE
Side Opponent : MUNAWAR HUSSAIN
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.467/468/471/420/409--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , cancellation of--Accused and his co-accused on account of their non-cooperative attitude and conduct had hampered the progress of the trial---Accused had allegedly misappropriated a substanti al amount and his case was hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.---Co-accused had already been refused bail --Amount of mens rea or the guilt was far more in the case of a planned crime as committed by the accused than contained in a crime committed out of .some impulsive action or sudden affair---Trial Court had not exercised its discretion judiciously in extending an undeserved concession of bail to accused---bail allowed to accused was cancelled in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2001 YLR 307 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ZAHEER AHMAD
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409---Sindh Enquiries and anti -corruption Rules, 1993, S.11(2)---bail , grant of--Accused was Sub-Inspector of Police and Commissioner was Competent Authority in his case under S.11(2) of Sindh Enquiries arid anti -corruption Rules, 1993---Criminal case, therefore, could not be launched against the accused without approval of Competent Authority/ Commissioner--- Accused, in absence of such approval, had been able to make out the case for grant of bail .


Citation Name : 2001 PLD 46 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : MIRZA JAVED IQBAL
Side Opponent : THE STATE THROUGH CHIEF PROSECUTOR, EHTESAB BUREAU, AZAD KASHMIR
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 87, 88, 497 & 512---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 409, 467, 468 fir. 109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , grant of---Accused , previously was admitted to bail on merits by Court of competent jurisdiction and order of said Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court---Intention of the accused did not appear to evade and conceal himself as he had been applying to dispense with his personal attendance---Accused after cancellation of his bail earlier appeared before the Court within a period of two months---Earlier order granti ng bail to the accused on merits should have been considered---Facts forming the background of holding the accused as an absconder, were not sufficient to declare him as such---Proceedings under 5.512, Cr.P.C. were taken against the accused without proceeding against him under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C. which proceeding was against the provisions of law---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2001 PLD 46 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : MIRZA JAVED IQBAL
Side Opponent : THE STATE THROUGH CHIEF PROSECUTOR, EHTESAB BUREAU, AZAD KASHMIR
Pakistan Penal Code ----Ss. 87, 88, 497 & 512---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 409, 467, 468 fir. 109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , grant of---Accused , previously was admitted to bail on merits by Court of competent jurisdiction and order of said Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court---Intention of the accused did not appear to evade and conceal himself as he had been applying to dispense with his personal attendance---Accused after cancellation of his bail earlier appeared before the Court within a period of two months---Earlier order granti ng bail to the accused on merits should have been considered---Facts forming the background of holding the accused as an absconder, were not sufficient to declare him as such---Proceedings under 5.512, Cr.P.C. were taken against the accused without proceeding against him under Ss.87 & 88, Cr.P.C. which proceeding was against the provisions of law---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2000 SCMR 1072 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/409/218---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---bail ---anti -corruption Establishment had shown haste in arresting the accused who were trapped when they appeared in response to. a notice to join the inquiry---Accused were yet to be confronted with the material collected by the anti -corruption Establishment against them, but without providing a reasonable opportunity of meeting the charge they were arrested---Assertion made on behalf of accused that they were not directly concerned with the account matters needed consideration---Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals which were allowed and the accused were admitted to bail accordingly.


Citation Name : 2000 SCMR 735 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : WAQAR HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : STATE
Prevention of corruption Act 1947 S.5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S .161/223/219/109/120-B--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suo Motu notice issued to accused by High Court for cancellation of bail ---Law had conferred suo motu powers of revision on High Court to ensure that the Courts subordinate to it had acted strictly within the legal bounds without transgressing their jurisdiction and the findings, sentence or orders recorded or passed by them were just and legal, but nevertheless in order to avoid any impression of arbitrariness in the exercise of such power, the order of initiating suo motu proceedings by the High Court should have mentioned the ostensible error or irregularity in the orders or proceedings of the subordinate Courts in order to enable the parties to know the reasons for such an action---High Court, no doubt, had the jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings by issuing notice to the accused for cancellation of his bail , but in view of the well reasoned order of the Special Judge granti ng bail to the accused, no circumstances justifying the suo motu action against him by the High Court were available---Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into appeal and the suo motu proceedings initiated by the High Court against the accused were quashed.


Citation Name : 2000 YLR 2928 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : GHULAM RAZA ABADI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409---bail ---Inquiry in the matter had recently been entrusted to the anti -corruption Establishment---F. I. R. already registered with the local police would be treated as a written complaint by the anti -corruption Establishment and after proper inquiry a decision would be taken by the Competent Authority as to whether a criminal case should be registered with the anti -corruption Establishment or not---No legal warrant to keep the accused behind the bars at such stage existed and accused deserved a fair opportunity to be associated with the inquiry to prove his innocence---Accused 'as released on bail in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2000 YLR 1313 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SAEED ZAFAR
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.497(2)---Prevention of corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5 (2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409---bail , grant of-- Accused, who was a C. S. P. Officer was behind the bars for the last more than five months---Investigation was still incomplete and the same could not proceed without the arrest of five co-accused who were at large---Accused could not be detained for indefinite period---No plausible evidence had been shown by the Investigating Officer for believing that the accused in course of his official duty had allotted land to bogus persons for his personal wrongful gain---Accused was not likely to abscond or tamper with the prosecution evidence and his detention in jail could not serve any useful purpose---Earlier inquiry started against the accused in the case was recommended to be dropped by the anti -corruption Authorities including the complainant---Case of the accused in circumstances needed further inquiry as contemplated by S.497(2), Cr.P.C. and he was admitted to bail accordingly.



Citation Name : 2000 YLR 1031 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD KRAM
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161/165 A---Prevention of corruption Act (11 of 1947), S.5 (2)---bail , grant of---Accused initially was not implicated by the complainant in the F.LR. as an accused, but subsequently he had been so implicated on the basis of his own statement allegedly made in another case before the anti -corruption Establishment which he had denied--Principal accused in the case had already been admitted to bail and the accused who was alleged to have abetted the said principal accused also deserved the same treatment--Offences allegedly committed by the accused were not hit by the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr. P. C. ---Challan having been submitted in the Court, continued custody of accused was not likely to serve any beneficial purpose---Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.



Citation Name : 2000 PCRLJ 871 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SABIR LODHI
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),5.420/468/471/409/109--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Punjab anti -corruption Rules, 1985, Rr.5, 6, 7 & 8---Pre-arrest bail ---Enmity between the parties due to election rivalry was established---High Court, in view of the physical infirmity of lady accused, had directed the Investigating Officer to record her statement at her residence, but even such first step towards the investigation had not been taken so far by the Investigating Officer---Relevant papers in the defence of allegations levelled against them sent by accused through courier service vide receipt to the Investigating Officer were not received by him and were returned---Prosecution, thus, was not interested in bringing on record the point of view of the accused and wanted to proceed further with the case only on the basis of allegations levelled in the F.I.R.---Case had been registered against the accused in a hurriedly manner by the anti -corruption Establishment without holding any preliminary inquiry in violation of Rr. 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the Punjab anti -corruption Rules, 1985 which had proved its mala fides---Stubborn manner in which the anti -corruption Establishment had refused to associate the accused in the inquiry/investigation even after the registration of the case had also revealed that the said Establishment was not interested in a genuine inquiry and investigation, but was merely urging for the arrest of accused for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjust harassment which could be validly considered for grant of pre-arrest bail ---Lady accused was physically infirm person suffering from paralysis and on this ground alone she was entitled to the grant of pre-arrest bail ---Co-accused who was a retired Professor from Government College and did not appear to have any connection with the crime seemed to have been involved merely because he was the husband of the lady accused---Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 1999 MLD 1163 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : WISAL MUHAMMAD KHAN
Side Opponent : FAIZ GUL, NAIB TEHSILDAR
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.419/420/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Cancellation of bail ---Accused had transferred the land of a person who had died two years before the attestation of mutation in question and they were, prima facie, connected with the commission of the offence charged against them---Special Court was not justified in granti ng pre-arrest bail to accused without first holding that the case registered against them was either frivolous or tainted with malice---Order granti ng pre-arrest bail to accused was not only arbitrary but was also perverse and the same was recalled accordingly.


Citation Name : 1999 PLD 121 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HANIF PATHAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Pakistan Penal Code S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Passports Act lXX of 1974), S.6(1)(a)(c)---Quashing of proceedings---Name of accused was neither mentioned in F.I.R. nor in interim challan or supplementary interim challan and he was also not assigned any part therein---Accused was a respectable person and was serving as General Manager (Store) in P.I.A., but police starter[ visiting his house in order to arrest him malafidely---Apprehending his imminent arrest and humiliation at hands of police, accused applied for bail before arrest which was granted and. finally was confirmed by Trial Court---After confirmation of bail accused was not required in case in any capacity, but -lie was directed to attend Trial Court for no reason and accused in obedience to directions of Court had been appearing before Court---When accused was granted bail he did not need to be directed to attend Court till conclusion of investigation and final report, but could be directed to join investigation---Order of Trial Court directing accused to attend Court was not warranted by law and was liable to be quashed--Object of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. whereby inherent powers were conferred on High Court, was to do real and substanti al justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court---To secure ends of justice, powers of High Court were very wide---For invoking jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. it was not. a condition precedent that Trial Court must be moved in each and every case in first instance---In absence of any evidence against accused no useful purpose would be served by dragging accused in case before Trial Court and accused was bound to be let off.


Citation Name : 1999 PLD 121 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HANIF PATHAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Prevention of corruption Act 1947 S. 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Passports Act lXX of 1974), S.6(1)(a)(c)---Quashing of proceedings---Name of accused was neither mentioned in F.I.R. nor in interim challan or supplementary interim challan and he was also not assigned any part therein---Accused was a respectable person and was serving as General Manager (Store) in P.I.A., but police starter[ visiting his house in order to arrest him malafidely---Apprehending his imminent arrest and humiliation at hands of police, accused applied for bail before arrest which was granted and. finally was confirmed by Trial Court---After confirmation of bail accused was not required in case in any capacity, but -lie was directed to attend Trial Court for no reason and accused in obedience to directions of Court had been appearing before Court---When accused was granted bail he did not need to be directed to attend Court till conclusion of investigation and final report, but could be directed to join investigation---Order of Trial Court directing accused to attend Court was not warranted by law and was liable to be quashed--Object of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. whereby inherent powers were conferred on High Court, was to do real and substanti al justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court---To secure ends of justice, powers of High Court were very wide---For invoking jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. it was not. a condition precedent that Trial Court must be moved in each and every case in first instance---In absence of any evidence against accused no useful purpose would be served by dragging accused in case before Trial Court and accused was bound to be let off.


Citation Name : 1998 MLD 202 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : ABDUL JALIL KHAN
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/420/468/471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail , grant of---Accused had deposited substanti al amount out of the alleged misappropriated amount in the Treasury before registration of the case---Evidence against accused consisted of official record which having been taken into possession by the raiding party, there was no possibility of the same being tampered with by him---Offences with which the accused was charged were not punishable with death or imprisonment for life---bail was allowed to accused in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1998 PCRLJ 362 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MOHBAT KHAN
Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 249-A & 439---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), .S.161 / 163/ 165/342/34--Prevention of corruption Act (I1 of 1947), S.5(2)---Discharge of accused and recalling of previous order---Validity---Complaint against Police Officers--Special Judge. anti -corruption , after recording statement of complainant Linder S.202, Cr.P.C. ordered holding preliminary enquiry by Deputy Director. anti corruption Establishment---Deputy Director, anti -corruption to whom preliminary enquiry was entrusted, instead of holding enquiry himself, forwarded enquiry to his subordinate Inspector who submitted report of preliminary enquiry to Special Judge who after perusing said report, ordered registration of case against accused/respondents under Ss. 161 & 220/34, P.P.C. and under S.5(2) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 and to issue summons against accused/respondents---One of the accused/respondents Who was Assistant Superintendent of Police had filed application under'S.249-A, Cr.P.C. alleging that enquiry against them which was ordered to be conducted by Deputy Director anti -corruption , having been conducted by his subordinate, who was junior in rank to the accused, such preliminary enquiry was against Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850. and also against anti -corruption Rules---Special Judge, anti -corruption , recalled his earlier order of issuance of process against accused and accused who was on bail was discharged from attending Court till receipt of preliminary enquiry by Special Judge from Deputy Director, anti corruption ---Such order of Special Judge anti -corruption had been assailed by complainant contending that discharge of accused by Courts and recalling previous order was against law and that once process was issued by, the Trial Court, same, could not be recalled for preliminary enquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C,--Held, preliminary enquiry was entrusted to be made by Deputy Director, anti -corruption , but he instead forwarded enquiry to his junior who was subordinate in rank to officer against whom he had conducted enquiry--Such enquiry was illegal, thus by order of Special Judge in which enquiry was asked again to be conducted by Deputy Director,. anti -corruption , interest of complainant /petitioner was not prejudiced in any case---Special Judge in circumstances very rightly rectified previous order and for the time being very rightly di9charged attendance of accused/respondent till receipt of final report from Deputy Director, anti -corruption ---Order of Special Judge being within legal ambit did not call for interference by Court in its revision jurisdiction.


Citation Name : 1997 PLD 367 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : M.B.ABBASSI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Pakistan Penal Code S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail ---Accused and his associates appeared to have acted in unison to perpetrate illegalities at the cost of the Institution which they were ex facie serving---Persons had been inducted at the behest of the accused in decision-making position who, in exercise of such powers, which might have been conducive to wrong-doing, had thrown over-board the rules of procedure consistently for ulterior motives---Architect had been sanctioned a large payment in proceedings in which he had actively participated to his own advantage and such sanction for him had come about even before the work contract was awarded---72 % payment had been released to the Contractor before anything substanti al had surfaced above the ground which indicated circumvention of rules at every stage---Case involved belatant high-handed conduct at the level of the functionaries performing at the apex---Sufficient material was available on record to sustain the averment of wrong-doing on the part of the several persons including the accused whose role appeared to be clear inviting ingredients of an offence under S.409/34, P.P.C. read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947---bail was, declined to accused in circumstances with the observation that apparently there were other persons also who seemed to be involved in such irregularities in the case and all such aspects would be considered by prosecution before the commencement of trial and necessary action would be taken by concerned functionaries in accordance with law.


Citation Name : 1997 PLD 367 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : M.B.ABBASSI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Prevention of corruption Act 1947 S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail ---Accused and his associates appeared to have acted in unison to perpetrate illegalities at the cost of the Institution which they were ex facie serving---Persons had been inducted at the behest of the accused in decision-making position who, in exercise of such powers, which might have been conducive to wrong-doing, had thrown over-board the rules of procedure consistently for ulterior motives---Architect had been sanctioned a large payment in proceedings in which he had actively participated to his own advantage and such sanction for him had come about even before the work contract was awarded---72 % payment had been released to the Contractor before anything substanti al had surfaced above the ground which indicated circumvention of rules at every stage---Case involved belatant high-handed conduct at the level of the functionaries performing at the apex---Sufficient material was available on record to sustain the averment of wrong-doing on the part of the several persons including the accused whose role appeared to be clear inviting ingredients of an offence under S.409/34, P.P.C. read with S.5(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947---bail was, declined to accused in circumstances with the observation that apparently there were other persons also who seemed to be involved in such irregularities in the case and all such aspects would be considered by prosecution before the commencement of trial and necessary action would be taken by concerned functionaries in accordance with law.


Citation Name : 1997 PCRLJ 1814 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : BRIG. (RETD.) ASLAM HAYAT QURESH
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV off' 1860), S.409/420/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail ---Co-accused having only been granted an ad interim anti cipatory bail which was yet to be confirmed, rule of consistency was not attracted to the case of accused who had sought post-arrest bail which was governed by different principles---Tentative assessment of the evidence available with the prosecution showed that the accused as a State functionary had given ultimate approval by ignoring illegalities committed by the other functionaries, which had caused colossal pecuniary loss to the national exchequer and unlawful pecuniary gain to the absconding accused---Accused, prima facie, was guilty of corruption which was the worst menace prevailing in the society these days---bail was .declined to accused in circumstances.


Citation Name : 1997 PCRLJ 910 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDULLAH SHAH
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---bail , grant of---Accused was neither named in the F.I.R. nor in the interim charge-sheet submitted by the prosecution---Prosecution witnesses in their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. had not implicated the accused---Documentary evidence so far collected being in possession of prosecution could not be tampered with by the accused--Series of cases initiated by the prosecution against the accused and granti ng him bail by the Court had supported the defence version that the Government, due to political differences, wanted to harass, humiliate and torture him by involving him in cases---Alleged dishonest disposal of the State land was committed in his, capacity of Chief Minister---Case against accused, prima facie required further inquiry and-he was allowed bail accordingly.


Citation Name : 1997 MLD 1737 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ABBOTTABAD
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/477-A/34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail ---F.I.R. was not only silent about the specific date or month when the offence was committed by the accused, but was also devoid of many other material details which could show their involvement in the alleged misappropriation or any information which could lead the Court to reach any such conclusion---Despite the direction given to the Investigating Officer to provide some necessary details within 15 days about the distribution and embezzlement of amounts etc. by the accused, the same were not provided by the prosecution, although the case had to be adjourned for this purpose many a times---Such conduct of the prosecution gave rise to two presumptions that either the anti -corruption Department had nothing in its possession against the accused and the F.I.R. had been lodged only to harass them or the concerned Department of anti -corruption , if it had anything against the accused, had come in collusion with them not to expose them in respect of their corruption and every such presumption did lead to a certainty that the conduct of the concerned Investigating Officer was the best symbol of corruption in the anti -corruption Department---Since guilt or innocence of the accused could not be found in the absence of record interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed.


Citation Name : 1996 SCMR 475 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : FAUJI FOUNDATION
Side Opponent : BAKHTIAR AHMED SYED
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471/109/419/409/ 201/ 467---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Cancellation of bail ---Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions that neither Sessions Judge nor Special Judge (Central) anti -corruption had jurisdiction in the case as offences alleged against the accused being scheduled offences were triable exclusively by a Special Court constituted under Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, which had already refused pre-arrest bail to the accused.


Citation Name : 1996 PCRLJ 1130 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : OMAIR AHMED SIDDIQUI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Art.3/4--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S.156(1)(8)---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail ---Several cases arising out of the same F.I.R.---Principles--Chain of cases arising out of the same F.I.R. or incident must not be broken at the time of deciding any bail application because facts of all the cases remain the same even if the evidence in those cases is recorded by different Courts and if an accused has been refused bail in a case with maximum punishment. then such an accused should not be encouraged by granti ng him bail in other cases arising out of the same chain of events.


Citation Name : 1995 PLC 409 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-SINDH
Side Appellant : DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY OFFICER, NAWABSHAH
Side Opponent : ALI MURAD
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 ----S.O.15(5)---Suspension---Employees working as storemen, were alleged to have committed misappropriation and defalcation of stored goods and sale proceed thereof and were challaned in Court of Special Judge who released them on bail ---Employees, during pendency of criminal cases against them were put under suspension and they after lapse of four years filed grievance petition before Labour Court against their suspension and Labour Court considering suspension as a continuing grievance, accepted their petition and directed their re-instatement during pendency of cases against them---Reason for re-instatement by Labour Court mainly was contravention of provisions of S.O. 15(5) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 under which during a domestic enquiry worker could be suspended only for four days at a time and maximum period of suspension could not exceed twenty-eight days---Provisions contained in S.O. 15(5) of the Ordinance neither had exhausted nor curtailed powers of Executive to suspend a person undergoing trial for an offence involving moral turpitude---When an employee; after careful investigation by anti -corruption Organisation, was challaned to stand trial before Special Judge, employers were not expected to retain in service such employees and pay them prescribed salary until decision of criminal cases against them, which could take years to conclude---If employees ultimately were convicted, question of their reinstatement would not arise, but if they were honourably acquitted they could claim re-instatement with back benefits---In the event of acquittal of employees for want of evidence it would also be open to employer organisation to hold a Departmental Enquiry to decide their fate---Such cases were not covered by provisions of S.O. 15(5) of the Ordinance limiting suspension to four days at a time--Contention that provisions of the Ordinance were exhaustive in case of workers suspension and that when there, vas no domestic enquiry, an employee could not be suspended apart from S.O. 15(5) was repelled, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 1995 PCRLJ 1733 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASIAM
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD GUL
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.420/468/471---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5---Cancellation of bail ---Enough material was available on record to show that the accused, who was an intrepid delinquent, had submitted a forged matriculation certificate to the Municipal Committee--Mere admission of accused in a hospital was not a ground to allow him bail --Order of Special Court granti ng bail to accused militated against the law, the record and good conscience and did call for interference, but the same was not recalled as the trial was, going to commence in near future.


Citation Name : 1995 PCRLJ 701 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : THE STATE THROUGH FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY S.I.U., ISLAMABAD
Side Opponent : CH. SHUJAAT HUSSAIN
Pakistan Penal Code ----S. 420/468/471/477-A/101,---Prevention of corruption Act (Il of 1947), 9.5(2)---Offences'in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.5(7)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Cancellation of interim bail ---Accused had allegedly obtained a sum of ROW million as loan from Financial Institutions by committing fraud and misrepresentation--Special Court had admitted the accused to ad interim bail in the sum of Rs. ten lac with one surety in the like amount and issued notice to the State---Validity of this order was challenged on the ground that Special Court had no jurisdiction to grant bail relief to the accused without issuing notice to the State and that the amount in the bail granti ng order was not fixed keeping in view the money involved in the case---Held, the bail petition of the accused being still pending adjudication before the Special Court petitioner (State) could raise such points in that Court---However, keeping in view the huge amount of money involved in the case the impugned interim order was modified by directing that in the meanti me the accused would furnish a fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. two crore with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Judge---Final date fixed for hearing of the bail petition before the Special Court was also shortened in the interest of law---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.


Citation Name : 1995 PCRLJ 430 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : PERWAIZ IQBAL
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497/498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/420/468/471/109---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail ---Prima facie public property worth corers of rupees had been grabbed by the accused and huge amount out of public and trust funds had been misappropriated by them who were the conscientious beneficiaries thereof---Record did not suggest that the proceedings initiated against the accused were either mala fide or without jurisdiction---Accused were named in the F.I.R. with specific role attributed to them---Substanti al evidentiary material in support of allegations against the accused had been collected by the prosecution which if taken into consideration alongwith the probabilities prima facie showed that reasonable grounds existed to believe that the accused were guilty of the offences alleged to have been committed by them, a majority whereof fell within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Merely because on a accused was a heart patient or was an aged person was hardly a circumstance to absolve him of a criminal liability of such type and even otherwise his ailment or infirmity was not of such a character as to admit him to bail pending investigation of such a serious case---bail was refused to accused in circumstances:


Citation Name : 1995 MLD 1226 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MANZOOR MALIK
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.218/109/161/409/420---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---bail ---Grant of---Senior Special Judge anti -corruption , did not decide bail application of accused in its proper perspective inasmuch as no speaking order was passed---Court was required under law to give reasons in support of order to be in matter brought before it for decision but failure of Court to pass order on bail application in line with such touchstone, bail application of accused would be deemed to be pending adjudication before the Court and parties would be at liberty to argue case by addressing their arguments in their own way.


Citation Name : 1990 MLD 56 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABU BAKAR
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409/380 & 109--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--bail --Accused was Store-Keeper of Fertilizer Depot from where huge quanti ty of fertilizer was transported by trucks and sold to commission agents who proved payment of price on examination before the Court--Balance amount of about Rs.4,00,000 had, also been received from, said agents by anti -corruption Staff-Bilties' of said fertilizer allegedly directly implicated accused in the case who also led to recovery of a pass book in the name of his minor son showing a credit balance of Rs.11 lacs with Bank--bail was refused to accused in view of such evidence available against accused regarding misappropriation of huge amount of public money.


Citation Name : 1989 PCRLJ 2035 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
Side Appellant : GHULAM SADIQ
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) -.--S. 498--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--bail before arrest--WAPDA employee-Occurrence took place in D.I. Khan--Special Judge, anti -corruption (Central), at Peshawar, having not been debarred either to grant or refuse anti cipatory bail in the cases falling under his jurisdiction, bail could be granted by him.



Citation Name : 1988 PCRLJ 2367 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SHAUKAT HUSSAIN SHAH
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S. 497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409 & 420--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)--bail , grant of--Accused while loading wheat for N.-W.F.P. on railway wagons making short despatches--On checking 59 loaded wagons, shortage worth Rs.14,49,000 found--Wagons loaded in three days--One of accused admittedly not present at spot but departmentally held to be negligent and reverted to his substanti ve post--Accused remaining in jail for more than :?1 months--Position of accused as public servant, yet to be established--Sanction for prosecution to take quite some time--bail allowed in circumstances.


Citation Name : 1987 MLD 1743 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : S.M.K. LODHI
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) --Ss.528 & 514--Transfer of criminal proceedings--Petitioner, stood surety for the accused before Special Judge, anti -corruption who subsequently absconded and said Court issued straightaway non-bail able warrants against the petitioner--Special Judge also made a complaint against petitioner to Punjab Bar Council for proceeding against him--Apprehension entertained by petitioner of not getting fair- trial from the Special Judge, held, was not without substance, in Circumstances--Proceedings trans erred to the file of Senior Special Judge.


Citation Name : 1986 PCRLJ 1446 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MALIK SULTAN AHMAD
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---Ss. 514 & 497--Forfeiture of surety bond--bail granted by Deputy Commissioner who had no jurisdiction in the matter--Case ultimately transferred to Special Judge anti -corruption having jurisdiction in the matter who passed order of forfeiture of surety bond in respect of bail granted by Deputy Commissioner--Held, since order passed by Deputy Commissioner releasing accused on b was without jurisdiction 'and ab initio void, surety bond executed in pursuance thereof was also invalid, surety, . .therefore, stood released--Order of Special Judge, anti corruption forfeiting surety bond set aside.


Citation Name : 1985 PCRLJ 1262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : REHMAT MASIH
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Pakistan Penal Code ---Ss. 161 a 162--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)-Sanction for prosecution--Competent authority granti ng sanction for trial of accused under S.161, P.P.C. read with S.5(2), Prevention of corruption Act, 1947, but accused charged and convicted under S.162, P.P.C.--Conviction and sentence of accused set aside and case remanded to trial Court for retrial after obtaining proper sanction or amending charge--Accused ordered to be released on bail till disposal of case by trial Court--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.526.


Citation Name : 1985 PCRLJ 569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : SULTAN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S.497 (1)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161--Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5 (2)--bail --Offence not falling within prohibitory clause of S.497 (1), Cr.P.C.--Alleged bribe money not recovered from accused and do further recovery was to be effected--Accused was behind bars for considerable time--Challan had not been submitted in Court for trial--Accused being a public servant, no apprehension of his abscondence existed--Case of accused was to be placed before Provincial anti -corruption Committee for decision as to whether accused was to be dealt with departmentally or tried in a Court of law--Court refusing bail for reason that matter being serious, was to be dealt with strong hands--General ground of seriousness of matter, held, should not prevail against accused not charged with offence falling within prohibitory clause of S.497 (1), Cr.P.C.--Accused was, therefore, entitled to bail in circumstances.


Citation Name : 1985 PCRLJ 371 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : FIDA HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S.497--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471--Prevention of corruption Act (I1 of 1947), S.5--Punjab anti -corruption Rules, 1974, r.7--bail --Total misappropriated amount only Rs.4,532--Accused sent to judicial lock-up and no recovery was to be made--Finding of Departmental Inquiry Committee recorded in favour of accused-Permission; for registration of case against accused or their arrest, not obtained from concerned authorities--Two accused out of three being public servants, their abscondence not apprehended---Accused, persons admitted to bail in circumstances.
Citation Name : 1983 PCRLJ 143 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMAD ZAFAR
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) --S. 497/498-A and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/420/488/471 read with Prevention of corruption Act (1I of 1947), S. 5 (2)-bail before arrest-Petitioner already charged with similar offences for embezzlement of huge amount released on bail after detention of about one year in Jail-Contention that instant case also relates to same period but was maliciously got registered a few days after petitioner's release from Jail-Investigation in case at initial stage-Petitioner a Bank employee charged with serious allegation of embezzlement of public money lying in trust with him-Case, held, not fit for granti ng pre-arrest bail at such stage.


Citation Name : 1983 PCRLJ 141 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMAD ZAFAR
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) --S. 497/498 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/420/468/470 read with Prevention of corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5 (2)-bail Amount involved Rs. 24 lacs out of which nine lacs recovered from petitioner and remaining yet to be recovered-Petitioner in Jail for more than a year-Challan of eleven cases submitted in Court and remaining pending investigation - for want of recovery-Substanti al amount having been recovered and trial likely to take considerable time, bail granted.


Citation Name : 2002 MLD 1659 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : WASI HAIDER
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497(2)'---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 420, 468, 471, 477-A, 109 & 34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)--bail , grant of---Further inquiry---Amount involved in case though was substanti al but that fact by itself would be no ground for refusing bail to accused especially when that huge amount was encashed during tenure of other officer---Case of accused was identical with case of co-accused who had been released on bail ---Rule of consistency demand that bail concession was also granted to accused as bail could not be withheld as a punishment to accused---Investigation had already been completed and accused were no, more required for investigation and it was a rule in matter of grant of bail in such cases to grant the bail and to refuse was an exception---Case being fit for further inquiry, accused were admitted to bail .

Citation Name : 1997 MLD 1737 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM
Side Opponent : SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ABBOTTABAD
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S.498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409/477-A/34---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail ---F.I.R. was not only silent about the specific date or month when the offence was committed by the accused, but was also devoid of many other material details which could show their involvement in the alleged misappropriation or any information which could lead the Court to reach any such conclusion---Despite the direction given to the Investigating Officer to provide some necessary details within 15 days about the distribution and embezzlement of amounts etc. by the accused, the same were not provided by the prosecution, although the case had to be adjourned for this purpose many a times---Such conduct of the prosecution gave rise to two presumptions that either the anti -corruption Department had nothing in its possession against the accused and the F.I.R. had been lodged only to harass them or the concerned Department of anti -corruption , if it had anything against the accused, had come in collusion with them not to expose them in respect of their corruption and every such presumption did lead to a certainty that the conduct of the concerned Investigating Officer was the best symbol of corruption in the anti -corruption Department---Since guilt or innocence of the accused could not be found in the absence of record interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed.

Citation Name : 1983 PCRLJ 141 BAGHDAD-UL-JADID
Side Appellant : BASHIR AHMAD ZAFAR
Side Opponent : STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) --S. 497/498 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/420/468/470 read with Prevention of corruption Act (11 of 1947), S. 5 (2)-bail Amount involved Rs. 24 lacs out of which nine lacs recovered from petitioner and remaining yet to be recovered-Petitioner in Jail for more than a year-Challan of eleven cases submitted in Court and remaining pending investigation - for want of recovery-Substanti al amount having been recovered and trial likely to take considerable time, bail granted .




Citation Name : 2004 PCRLJ 285 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Side Appellant : ABDUL QADIR
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860); Ss. 420/468/471/477-A---Prearrest bail ---Prosecution story was clouded under doubt---F.I.R. was not registered by the anti -corruption Department, but a regular F.I.R. was registered under the directions of D.P.O.---State Counsel had conceded to the grant of pre-arrest bail to the accused---Accused was to be humiliated, disgraced and subjected to torture by the police if he was arrested in the case---Pre-arrest bail was granted to accused in circumstances.
Citation Name : 2007 YLR 345 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : UMER HAYAT
Side Opponent : State
---S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.161---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Unexplained delay in lodging of F.I.R.---Inquiries against accused dropped by anti -corruption Establishment---Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he allegedly received certain amount as bribe from complainant on pretext of procuring his appointment as Lamberdar through concerned officers---Accused contended that two inquiries held against accused by anti -corruption Establishment were dropped as allegations of complainant were found baseless; that complaint against petitioner was filed after delay of one year for which no plausible reason was given and that provisions of S.161, P.P.C. were not applicable to the case of petitioner---Validity---Admittedly, there was an unexplained delay of one year in lodging of complaint---Accused had been exonerated in two inquiries held by anti -corruption Establishment and necessity for initiating third inquiry had not been explained---Alleged transaction between the parties did not relate to official duties of accused in his capacity as public servant and registration of case against accused appeared to be immature---Complainant himself appeared to be involved in a number of criminal cases, hence not much credibility could be attached to complaint or his statement made before Investigating Officer---Provisions of S.161, P.P.C. were not applicable to the case of petitioner---Accused, who was a constable, could not by any stretch of imagination procure appointment of complainant as Lamberdar---Present case was not that of raid conducted by Magistrate but a transaction which took place between the parties---Offences mentioned in F.I.R. were not hit by prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., hence grant of bail was a rule---Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to accused was confirmed.


Citation Name : 2003 YLR 2395 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.409---Prevention of corruption Act (II of 1947) S.5---bail , grant of---Allegations against the accused were that he and his co­ accused while they were posted at P.R. Centre had misappropriated 69.360 M. Tons of wheat belonging to the Food Department-- F. I. R. had been lodged after a delay of about one year---Accused had moved application to Director anti -corruption wherein he had mentioned that he was neither joined in the investigation nor was heard before sanction of judicial action against him and so injustice had been caused to him---Director anti ­ corruption , on the said application, had ordered to reopen the matter despite the accord of sanction for judicial action against the accused---In view of all the facts particularly the registration of two separate F.I.Rs. at the instance of the accused against the co-accused and the members of the supervising team constituted by the Department to supervise despatches of wheat stocks lying in open at the said P.R. Centre alleging misappropriation of wheat stocks against them and re-opening of the matter on accused's request by the Director anti ­ corruption , case against the accused called for further inquiry into his guilt--­ Accused was granted bail in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2002 YLR 3831 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : Ch. NAZIR AHMAD
Side Opponent : THE STATE
----S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 380/409/109---Pre-arrest bail , confirmation of---Accused had deposited alleged misappropriated amount with Department--No allegation was levelled against accused for their non joining the investigation and it was not necessary that accused should be handcuffed for effecting recovery of alleged bogus licences---Case against accused having been registered with local police, ordinarily it should have been investigated by anti -corruption Establishment as accused were civil servants---Law Officer was asked to direct Investigating Officer to send file to anti -corruption Establishment for inquiry/investigation---Ad interim bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.