IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No.1568 of 2016
Cr. Bail Application No.1570 of 2016
Cr. Bail Application No.1686 of 2016
DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
Mr. Naimatullah Khan, advocate for applicant
in Cr. Bail No.1568/2016.
Mr. Muhammad Jamil, advocate for applicant
in Cr. Bail No.1570/2016.
Mr. Shaukat Ali Shahroze, advocate for applicant
in Cr. Bail No.1686/2016.
Mr. Muhammad ShoaibMirza, Standing Counsel
alongwith I.O. Inspector SajjadHussain and Mirza
Tanveer Ahmed, Inspector Legal, FIA.
Date of hearing : 07.12.2016
O R D E R
SHAHNAWAZ TARIQ,J:- Through captioned post-arrest bail applications, applicants Raja Minhas, Muhammad Shaban and Muhammad Kamran Khan have impugned order dated 18.10.2016, passed by the Court of Special Judge (Central-II) Karachi, whereby their earlier bail applications were declined.
2. Per prosecution’s accusation,during investigation of FIR No.3/2016, accused Wahabposted in SITE NADRA disclosed that one Mudassirhad reported that NADRA officials illegallyinserted names of six unknown persons in family tree of his fatherand issued them CNICs and said fabrication was disclosed in SMA No.43/2016. Record has established that NADRA officials namely Raja Minhas, Muhammad Shaban, Muhammad Kamran and Rasheed Ahmed have processed the data of by fake documents for issuance of CNICs to fake persons, hence instant FIR.
3. Learned counsel forapplicants, at the very outset, contended that applicantsare innocent and have been falselyinvolvedby the complainant with ulterior motives; that applicants were processingthe data and were not authorized to verify the documents placed at their desks;that M. SaeedQureshi, Incharge/Supervisor of the office, wasempowered to approve the data and he had admitted such fact in his statements; that no case regarding preparation of any forged document has been made out by the prosecution and alleged offence is punishable up to 5 years or fine; that absconder accused Rasheed Ahmed has already been granted interim pre-arrest bail by learned trial Court, hence applicants are entitled for concession of bail. Learned counsel relied on PLD 2011 SC 509, PLD 2009 Karachi 191, 2002 SCMR 282 and SBLR 2016 Sindh 1908.
4. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the plea of bail agitated by learned defence counsel and contended that commission of alleged offence is obvious from the available record, hence they are not entitled for grant of bail.
5. Perusal of available record emanates that alleged offence occurred during 2009-10, but FIR has been registered on 08.09.2016 with an inordinate delay of 6 years for which no plausible explanation has beenfurnished by the complainant. Indeed, applicantswereperforming their respective duties at the relevant time atSITE NADRA office as sub-ordinate staff and dealing with different desks for processing the data, nevertheless they were neither authorized to check the authenticity and genuineness of the documents nor to verify their veracity from the concerned quarter. There are allegations for processing the data by applicants but copies of IDs were not signed by them.WhileM.SaeedQureshibeing Incharge/Supervisor wasconferred with the authority to examine the authenticity of documents and approve the data processed by the applicants and transmit approved data to headquarter Islamabad for issuance of CNICs.Investigating Officer recorded three further statements of Incharge/Supervisor, who in his statements had candidly admitted that he approved the data processed by applicants, but he was neither interrogated by Investigating Officer norhis name was included in the array of accused but his name was placed in the list of witnesses without furnishing plausible explanation that as to why he was not implicated him as one of the accused regarding commission of alleged offence.Indeed, complainant himself had conducted the investigation of crime but the demeanor of conducting the initial inquiry and investigation of the subject crimereflectsthe pick and choose of the accused persons which showsmalafideand ulterior motives on the part of Investigating Officer which is not only impermissible but utter violation of the well settled principle of investigation and prescribed procedure for dispensation of administration of criminal justice. In such nature crimes, bail should not be withheld as a matter of punishment.It is the statics on crime but the laws to deal with those crimes that defines a society as civilized.
6. Undeniably, case of the prosecution is entirely based upon the documentary evidence and relevant record has already been collected and seized by Investigating Officer and same is in the custody of prosecution, hence there is no apprehension of tempering with prosecution evidence. OffencesU/s 419, 420, 468, 471, 109, 34 PPC R/W S.5(2) PCA-II, 1947are punishable up to 7 years, while offence U/s 30(f) of NADRA Ordinance, 2000, is punishable upto 5 years or fine, hence alleged offences do not fall within the parameters of restraining clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It is well settled that while dealingwith the question of bail, Court should consider the minimum aspect of sentence provided for the alleged offence in the schedule.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances referred supra, applicants have succeeded to make out a case for grant of bail on the ground of further enquiry as envisaged under subsection 2 of section 497 Cr.P.C. Consequently, applicants are admitted to the post-arrest bail subject to furnishing solvent surety in sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) each with P.R. bonds in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
The observations made above are tentative in nature and learned trial Court shall decide the subject case strictly on its merits.
JUDGE
Zahidbaig