IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Cr. Bail Application No. 03 of 2013
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
For Hearing.
31.01.2013
Ms Saify Ali Khan, advocate for the applicant
Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, Addl.P.G
SIP Mashooq Ali Jiskani of P.S. AVCC is present
-----------
O R D E R
Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, J: Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the order dated 26.12.2012 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge (South) Karachi in Cr. Bail Application No.1420 of 2012 in Crime No. 94/2012 under section 420/468/471/ 472/34 PPC registered at P.S. AVCC/CIA, whereby bail of the applicant was dismissed, the applicant filed instant bail application under section 497 Cr.P.C seeking his release on bail subject to furnishing surety.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that Inspector Zameer Hussain was on duty at Police Station AVCC/CIA. He received private information about 3:00pm on 19.12.2012, that two suspects with forged/counterfeit and fake appointment letters of various Government department rubber stamps are waiting in a white Swift car bearing Registration No.ATK-501 for someone at THE PARIS HOTEL, Saddar Karachi. And that accused persons are staying at the said Hotel and are doing cheating with public for money and making counterfeit, forged documents and giving false hopes of jobs/appointment in different department. Further Inspector Zameer Hussain stated that he along with police party namely 1, Imran PC.25900, 2.Ali Khan PC.8050, 3.Faisal PC.25894, 4.Arslaan PC.25893, arrived at THE PARIS HOTEL SADDAR, Karachi around 0300 Hours and saw a white Car bearing No:ATK-501 waiting there, they took the car in their custody and arrested both the persons, namely(1) Mumtaz son of Muhammad Ismail and (2) Muhammad Nawaz Bhutto son of Muhammad Ameen Bhutto. The police party recovered from Mumtaz son of Muhammad Ismail a Rubber Stamp of Local Government Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and another Rubber Stamp of the Chief Minister of Sindh, 05 Letterheads of Sindh Government and Cash Rs.2000/- (Two Thousand only). Similarly they recovered from Muhammad Nawaz Bhutto son of Muhammad Ameen Bhutto a fake Appointment Letters of Sindh Local Government, Government of Sindh in the name of (1) Muhammad Irshad son of Muhammad Moosa, (2) Mansoor Ali son of Mumtaz Ali, (3) Abdul Rasheed, (4) Muhammad Siddiq son of Muhammad Rafiq, (5) Dadan Ali son of Muhammad Younus, (6) Abdul Ghani son of Suleman, (7) Allah Baksh son of Muhammad Jan duly signed by the Section Officer Admin. Alongwith the rubber stamp affixed of the Local Government Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi, and 06 Letterheads with Monograms of the Government of Sindh, and a Relieving order in the name of Muhammad Azam son of Ghulam Nabi by Water and Sewerage Board Karachi, and Relieving Order Medical Department, and Relieving Report of Chief Engineer-II, Water Department City District Government Karachi in the names of (1) Ghulam Hussain son of Khadim Hussain, (2) Anwar Ali son Shafi Muhammad, (3) Muhammad Ejaz son of Shabbir Ahmed and cash Rs.3000/- (Three Thousand only). On further investigations from the accused persons it was revealed that they in the past have also issued fake appointment letters to various persons after receiving payments by using the Rubber Stamps of different Departments and Chief Minister Sindh with the help of their accomplices namely (1) Darman Saraebo (2) Muzaffar Shah and (3) Imtiaz Abbasi. Thereby as per legal procedures the said two accused persons were arrested alongwith the custody of the Rubber Stamps, Documents, Appointment Letters and the Car bearing no.ATK-501.
3. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant crime, whereas none of the alleged offence has been committed by the applicant. On the contrary, he is himself a victim of circumstances in the instant matter. It is further stated that neither the car belonged to the applicant nor any recovery of rubber stamp and other alleged forged documents have been effected from the applicant, whereas, some appointment letters have been foisted upon the applicant. Learned counsel further states that there is no private witness of the alleged recovery of arrest of the applicant instead of the fact that they were arrested from the thickly populated place. It is further stated that none of the offence alleged against the applicant falls within the prohibitory clause and the matter requires further inquiry. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the cases which were referred before the learned trial Court by the counsel for the applicant, which according to learned counsel were not considered by the learned trial Court.
4. Conversely, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh has opposed the grant of bail to the applicant and states that the recovery of forged letterheads and appointment letters has been made from the possession of the applicant, whereas statement of various persons have been recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, who have implicated the main accused Mumtaz and also Muhammad Nawaz Bhutto in the instant crime. The I.O of the case who is present in Court was directed to show as to whether statement of any of the persons in whose names the alleged appointment letters were issued has been recorded, in response to which he has candidly stated that only their names are available, whereas, neither they have not been examined nor have been shown as prosecution witnesses.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh and perused the record of the case. On tentative assessment, it appears that the allegations relating to alleged forgery and issuance of fake appointment letters in favour of the incumbents required further inquiry into the matter, particularly, when none of the persons who have allegedly been cheated or defrauded have come forward to register the complaint, nor they have been examined or shown as witness by the prosecution. The alleged recovery under the circumstances, in the absence of any private witnesses cannot be treated as free from doubt. The matter requires further inquiry into the matter, whereas the charge against the applicant can be established only if the prosecution produces sufficient material, which may directly connect the applicant from the alleged crime. Prima-facie the offence against the applicant does not fall within the prohibitory clause.
8. Accordingly, applicant is admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lac) and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.
9. Needless to observe that the observations made hereinabove are tentative in nature and the learned trial court shall not be prejudiced by any such observations and shall decide the case on merits in view of the evidence available on record.
JUDGE