ORDER
SHEET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order
with signature of Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DATE OF HEARING 20.06.2017
Mr. Abdul Rasheed, advocate for applicant.
Mr. Muhammad Aslam Butt, DAG alongwith I.O. of the
case namely Inspector Rasheed Ahmed Shaikh, FIA/CBC,
*********
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI J; By this order, we intend to dispose
of Criminal Bail Application No.835 of 2017 filed by the applicant Syed
Mohammad Ali son of Syed Zafar Ahmed after rejection of his bail in Case
No.84/2011 vide order dated 22.05.2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special
Court (Offences in Banks), Sindh at Karachi.
The brief
facts of the case are that the complainant given two pay orders to the accused
Syed Muhammad Ali in connection with business dealing for onward
delivery/payment to Mohammad Ali Aziz but said accused fraudulently deposited
the said pay orders in his account in collusion with bank staff, hence instant
FIR has been registered.
Learned
counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in the instant crime with malafide intention and
ulterior motives. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that alleged
incident took place in the year 2010 and FIR has been lodged on 29.09.2011
after a huge delay for which no explanation has been given by the complainant,
which infers that the FIR was lodged after thought and it makes the case of the
applicant of further inquiry. Learned Counsel for the applicant further
contends that the case of the applicant depends upon documentary evidence,
which are in possession of the prosecution and same cannot be tempered or
altered if the applicant is released on bail. He submits that the applicant is
ready to furnish solvent surety equivalent to the amount which were allegedly
embezzled by the applicant.
Learned DAG
half-heartedly opposes the grant of bail and admits that the case of the
applicant is based on documentary evidence which are
in possession of the prosecution.
We have
heard Mr. Abdul Rasheed Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Muhammad Aslam Butt,
learned DAG, Investigating Officer present in Court so also perused the
material available on record with their assistance.
The entire
case is based on documentary evidence which has already been collected by the
prosecution, as such in my humble opinion there is no likelihood of tampering
with the prosecution evidence at all. More
substantial evidence was needed
to prove criminal liability of accused persons, which could only be done at
trial by recording evidence as such his further detention would not serve any
useful purpose. Notices were issued to the complainant but he chooses to remain
absent and not pursing the matter. Investigation officer present in Court
submits that bank has already paid the amount as claimed in the FIR to the
complainant therefore, the complainant is not pursuing
the case. According to I.O. he has submitted final charge sheet before the
Trial Court, which reflects that the investigation has already been completed
and accused is no more required for further investigation. The above version
finds support from the dicta laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of
Saeed Ahmed versus the State reported in 1996
SCMR 1132, relevant portion is reads as under :-
“Case against the accused entirely depended upon
documentary evidence which was in possession of the prosecution and there was
no possibility of tampering with the same. Petition for leave to appeal was
converted into an appeal and the accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
In another
case of Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmad versus the State reported in 2011 MLD 1761, it has
been observed that:-
“All the documentary evidence having been collected by
the prosecution, the same was not likely to be tampered with by the accused.
Case of accused fell within the purview of further inquiry. Accused was admitted
to bail in circumstances.
According to learned counsel for the applicant, the
applicant is also ready to furnish solvent surety to the satisfaction of the learned
Trial Court equivalent to amount as claimed in the FIR.
Above are the reasons of our short order dated
20.06.2017, announced in early part of the day, whereby Applicant is admitted
to bail on furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs
only) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court.
Instant Bail Application
stands disposed of accordingly.
J U D G
E
J
U D G E
Karachi
Dated _________________