Sufyan Ahmad Versus The State.

Case/FIR No.93/2017.
Offence U/S 2(3) iii Punjab Universities and Board
Malpractice Act 1959 amended ordinance 1959.
P.S Civil Line, Sahiwal.

17.06.2017.
ORDER.
Present: Petitioner/accused Sufyan Ahmad on ad-interim bail
alongwith his counsel.
Learned ADPP for the State.
Pairvi Officer with record.

The petitioner/accused Sufyan Ahmad filed this pre-arrest bail

in case FIR No.93/2017, U/S 2(3) iii Punjab Universities and Board
Malpractice Act 1959 amended ordinance 1959 P.S. Civil Line Sahiwal.
2. As per contents of FIR the allegation against the petitioner/accused
is that he engaged someone else to take examination in his place, hence this
case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused has argued that false
case has been registered against the petitioner/accused; that according to
FIR, the person who was taking paper in place of petitioner/accused fled
away; in fact the petitioner/accused was taking himself paper of English, the
picture available on roll number slip was 5/6-years old which created doubt
in the mind of the checking team, they called police and due to fear of arrest,
petitioner ran away from the examination center. That there was bit
difference with the picture of roll number slip from the CNIC of the
petitioner/accused. That accused/petitioner is previous non convict and
non record holder; that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the
commission of alleged crime. That the offence attributed to the petitioner does
not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C and no
use full purpose will be server with the detention of the petitioner/accused;
that the case of the petitioner/accused is that of further inquiry. The
petitioner, is therefore, entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, Learned DDPP for the State resisted this bail
petition and prayed for its dismissal.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Perusal of record shows that though the petitioner/accused is
nominated in the FIR yet, the allegation against him is that he managed
someone else to take paper of English on his behalf yet the said impersonator
succeeded to flee away. He has joined the investigation and is no more
required by the police for further investigation. Nothing is to be recovered
from the petitioner/accused. The offence attributed to the petitioner/accused
does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P. In
view of the dictums of the Hon’ble Higher Courts, no useful purpose would be
served if he is sent to jail. His case falls within the purview of further
inquiry and further probe is required to connect the accused with the
commission of offence. In view of above said circumstances ad-interim bail
already granted to the petitioner/accused is hereby confirmed subject to
furnishing his fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in
the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court within seven days.
File be consigned to record room after its completion.

Announced. (Saeed Akhtar),

17.06.2017. Addl: Sessions Judge,
Sahiwal.