Criminal Bail Application No. 1083 of 2012
Present
Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi.
Date of hearing : 24.10.2012
Date of order : 24 .10.2012
Applicant : Intikhab Alam through
Mr. Jawaid Ahmed Chattari,
Advocate.
Versus
Complainant : Tameer Bank through
Mr. Mehmood Ahmed Khan,
advocate
Respondent : The State through
Mr. M. Iqbal Awan, APG.
O R D E R
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by order dated 03.10.2012 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge (West) Karachi on Criminal Bail Application No.1131 of 2012 emanating from FIR No.155/2010 registered under section 420/408 PPC at Police Station Iqbal Market, whereby the bail application of the applicant was dismissed, the applicant has filed instant bail application before this Court seeking his release on bail on furnishing surety.
2. Brief facts as stated in the FIR are that the complainant is working as Supervisor in Fraud investigation in Tameer Bank. Intikhab Alam and Muhammad Aqeel were also working as Relation Bank Officer in Tameer Bank situated at Pakistan Bazar Orangi Town, Karachi. The nature of their job was to provide customers for the bank. In 2008, Tameer Bank started to give loans on deposit of Gold, thereupon both the persons provided customers for obtaining loans on Gold. From 2008 to 2011, both the persons provided a number of customers to the Bank. In 2011, both the persons resigned from their post. After their resignation it came to the knowledge of the Tameer Bank that both above named persons fraudulently prepared bogus documents and also deposited artificial gold and got loan to the fake and fraudulent customers. On account of the said fraud, the bank suffered a heavy loss of Rs.50,00,000/- approximately.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime with malafide intention by the complainant who was neither authorized by the bank to lodge an FIR against the accused person nor the contents of FIR reflect such authorization. Per learned counsel, the applicant was employed with the bank as a Public Relation Officer, whose function was to introduce the customers, whereas he had no concern whatsoever with the process of loan granted by the bank against deposited of Gold. It is contended by the learned counsel that the applicant is being charged with an offence of fraud without specifying the particulars and nature of fraud, which allegedly took place during the period from 2008 to 2011, whereas FIR has been registered on 28.8.2012 and there is no explanation for such delay in registration of the FIR. Per learned counsel, from bear perusal of the contents of FIR, the allegations contained in the FIR besides being false and frivolous, do no connect the applicant with the alleged crime in any manner, whereas the applicant is being dragged in the instant crime to cover-up some high bank officials for advancing loan to the customers, who might be involved in the alleged crime. The applicant had already resigned from the services and was given appreciation letter, whereafter he is being implicated in the instant alleged crime as a scapegoat, whereas neither any bank officer nor any such customer who has allegedly managed to obtain loan from the bank on the basis of fake Gold has been charged with any offence. Learned counsel states that besides being a false and frivolous case wherein there is no probability of conviction to the accused person in the instant crime, the matter requires further inquiry, therefore, the applicant may be admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety.
4. Conversely, Mr. Mehmood Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the bank, who has filed his Vakalatnama in connected Cr. Bail Application No.1056/2012 on behalf of the complainant, has opposed the grant of bail and submitted that though the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause, however, the applicant is not liable to be released on bail as he has committed fraud upon the bank and has also cheated the innocent customers. On the other hand, learned APG does not oppose the grant of bail.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel as well as learned APG and perused the record. On tentative assessment of the record and keeping in view the contents of the FIR, it appears that admittedly the applicant was employed with the bank as a Public Relation Officer, whose function was to introduce the customers, whereas there is no allegation against the applicant to the effect that he was also responsible or involved in the process of grant of loan to the customers. No specific instance or particulars of the alleged fraud have been reported by the complainant, whereas admittedly there is considerable delay in lodging the FIR, which remains unexplained. No incriminating material is presently available on record, which may connect the applicant with the alleged crime, hence the matter requires further inquiry, whereas the alleged offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
6. In view of hereinabove, I am of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, the applicant was admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of Nazir of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2012 and these are the reasons for such short order.
JUDGE