2002 PLP 3845 (YLR)

Mian Saeed‑ud‑Din Ahmad for the State. Date of hearing: 12th December, 2001. SHEIKH ABDUR RAZZAQ, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks post‑arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 130 of 2001, dated 16‑3‑2001 under sections 420, 468, 471, 467, 407 and 109, P.P.C. registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the present petitioner alongwith Ishfaq Gulrez, Tanveer Ahmed Haral, Shahid‑ud‑Din Johar, Sahaf, Farakh Jehangir Karamat, Agha Jehanzeb, Naeem‑ud‑Din Qamar, Arif Moaaz Shah, Al‑e‑Shafi, Dr. Tafreez Ajmad and Aurangzeb Butt stand charged for forging bank guarantee and thereby committing misappropriation to the tune of Rupees 77 Millions alleged to have been advanced by Emirates Bank International (EBI) Egerton Road, Lahore.

3. The petitioner alongwith Ishfaq Gulrez and Shahid‑ud‑Din Johar Sahaf applied for bail which relief was declined to them by the learned Trial Court vide orders, dated 19‑4‑2001 and 8‑8‑2001. Hence the instant petition.

4. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

5. Stand of learned counsel for the petitioner is that prosecution has not so far been able to collect any evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of offence alleged against him, that according to the report under section 173, Cr.P.C. submitted in the Trial Court, it is Agha Jehanzeb, who purchased the stamp paper, prepared bank guarantee and later on forged the signature thereon, that prosecution has not collected any evidence to show if this so‑called bank guarantee contained the signature of the present petitioner, that no amount alleged to have been obtained through forged bank guarantee was ever utilized by the present petitioner or recovered from his possession, that two of the main accused Farrukh Jehangir Karamat and Al‑e‑Shafi have already been granted bail, that Dr. Tafreez Ahmad and Aurangeb Butt have also been granted the same relief although their case is not at par with the case of the petitioner. He thus submits that all these facts make the case of the petitioner open for further inquiry and‑ he may be admitted to bail.

6. Conversely bail application has been opposed by learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant.

7. To supplement his contentions, it is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant. that verification of the bank guarantee was made by the present petitioner and as such he facilitated the commission of this offence. However, he admits that letter regarding bank guarantee, dated 28‑4‑2000 as well as letter of verification of even date were produced by Tanveer Ahmad Haral, a co‑accused of the present petitioner.

8. The only evidence against the present petitioner is that he is said to have verified the bank guarantee, dated 28‑4‑2000. However, the prosecution has not been able to collect any evidence connecting the present petitioner with the commission of this offence was neither his specimen signatures were ever obtained and got compared with the alleged signature bearing on the bank guarantee, dated 28‑4‑2000. On the other hand investigation reveals that the paper on which the bank guarantee has been forged was purchased by Agha Jehanzeb and it was Agha Jehanzeb who prepared the bank, guarantee and it was he who forged the signature thereon. All these facts make the case of the present petitioner open for further inquiry. Accordingly his bail petition is accepted and he is admitted to bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs only) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Curt. H.B.T./M‑1521/L Bail granted.