IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA

Criminal Bail Application No.S-360 of 2018

Applicant               :                         Manzoor Ahmed s/o Ghulam Hyder Bhatti, Through Mr.Habibullah Ghouri, Advocate

State                          :                       Through Mr.Raja Imtiaz Ali Solangi, A.P.G,

Complainant Ali Akbar in person.

Date of hearing      :                       27.08.2018             

Date of order          :                       27.08.2018                         

O R D E R

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J.- The applicant allegedly was apprehended by the police party of P.S Anti Corruption, Qamber-Shahdadkot, while accepting bribe of rupees eighty thousand from complainant Ali Akbar for extending favour to his brother Sartaj Ahmed in investigation of a criminal case which was registered against him with P.S Warrah, for that he was booked and challaned in the present case.

2.                    On having been refused post-arrest bail by learned trial Court, the applicant has sought for the same from this Court by way of instant application under section 497 Cr.PC.

3.                    It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being innocent has been involved in this case falsely by the police, the offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause and  complainant Ali Akbar by filing his affidavit has raised no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by stating therein that the applicant is not connected with commission of the incident. By contending so, he sought for release of the applicant on bail, as according to him, his case is calling of further enquiry.

4.                    Learned A.P.G for the State has opposed to grant of bail to the applicant by contending that the offence which the applicant has committed is affecting the society at large.

5.                    It is contended by the complainant that it was SHO, P.S, Warrah, who demanded bribe money from him, which he passed-on to an unknown police person and not to the applicant and the applicant according to him is not connected with the incident. By contending so, he raised no objection to grant of bail to the applicant by filing such affidavit.

6.                    I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

7.                    The offence which the applicant allegedly has committed is not falling within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(2) Cr.PC. There is nothing on record which may indicate that the conversation between the applicant and the complainant prior to passing of the bribe money was heard by the raiding party. As per the complainant in his affidavit, the tainted money was not passed on to the applicant but to some unknown police person and the applicant is not connected with commission of the incident. If it is believed to be so, then the guilt of the applicant obviously is calling for further enquiry.  

8.                    In view of facts and reasons discussed above, the applicant is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.  

9.                    The instant application is disposed of accordingly.

                                                                                             J U D G E