P L D 1987 Peshawar 161 (PLP)

‑‑‑S. 497‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 409/420/468/471‑‑Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)‑‑Bail‑‑Accused habitually making breach of trust‑‑Reasonable grounds. existing to, connect him with offence‑‑Offence if proved would be very. serious as an amount of Rupees eighteen lacs had allegedly been ‑misappropriated and would entail maximum punishment of imprisonment for life‑‑Petition hit by prohibition clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C‑‑Number of other cases involving huge amounts pending against accused and State likely to move for recall of bail granting order, passed in favour of accused, in those cases‑‑Held, accused was not entitled to be released. on bail in such circumstances. Sanaullah Khan Gandapur for Petitioner. Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 30th June, 1987. Muhammad Yousuf petitioner was Manager of the National Savings Centre D.I. Khan when he was charged a/s 409/420/468/471, PPC read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for. criminal breach of trust by misappropriating different amounts deposited by the people in the National Savings Centre. 'The misappropriation came to light in the year 1986 when M.A. Safeey, Joint Director National Savings, Peshawar Region reported the matter to F.I.A.. Sub‑circle D.I.Khan where F.I.Rs. No. 34/86, 35/86, 36/86, 32/86, 33/86 and 1/87 were recorded. According to these FIRS. the petitioner has been charged for withdrawing amounts from the‑accounts of the Centre and misappropriating the same. The total misappropriated amount of these FIRS comes to Rs.17,93,

152. The petitioner was arrested and he applied for bail to the Special Judge, Anti‑Corruption (Central) which was rejected. The petitioner hag, therefore, approached this Court with six bail petitions No. 72/87 to 77/87.. The judgment in the present bail petition No.72/87 will also dispose of the other five bail petitions. .

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties who have also led and through record of the cases.

3. It is admitted that the petitioner was Manager of the National Savings Centre, D.I.Khan when the alleged embezzlement of money too[C place. It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a Government servant, that the investigation will take' long to finalize and then the trial of each case will also prolong and as such the petitioner, be released on bail. I am afraid this is no ground for allowing bail to the petitioner who, no doubt, is a Government servant but the money deposited in the Centre was a trust with him and he is accused of the breach of that trust. It is immaterial whether the investigation will take long or the trial will prolong. The main question for determination at this stage is whether reasonable ground exists to connect the accused with the offence. The record so far produced shows that the petitioner used to receive money for deposit from the people and he entered the same in the books. It shall, therefore, be seen that it was very easy for him to make interpolations in the accounts and as such there are reasonable grounds to connect him with the offence. The offence, if proved against him would be quite serious because an amount of about 18 lacs has been allegedly misappropriated and the offence with which the petitioner has been charged would entail the maximum punishment of imprisonment for life and the petition is hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.

4. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was behind bars since the last seven months and no progress had taken place in the case. This is hardly a ground to plead for the concession of bail. Even otherwise, the petitioner can have resort to the provisions of third proviso to Section C' 497, Cr.P.C. if such an occasion arises however, it appears that the petitioner is a habitual offender and his plea for bail cannot be entertained on this score at this stage. The law will take its own course when, after the statutory period, a new bail application, if any, is moved by the petitioner.

5. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there were two other cases of this nature reported against the petitioner in which the learned trial Judge had granted bail to him but in the cases in hand it was refused. His allegations were that there was no consistency in the orders made on different bail petitions. The perusal of the impugned order of the learned Special Judge would show that previously two cases were reported against him where a total amount of about three lac was involved and he allowed bail to the petitioner but when more cases were reported involving huge amounts the learned Special Judge declined to grant bail to the petitioner. The judgment of the learned Special Judge impugned in the bail petitions cannot, therefore, be challenged on this score. Even otherwise, it has been stated by the learned Assistant Advocate‑General that the complainant is intending to move the learned Special Judge or the higher Court for recall of the bail granted to the petitioner in the earlier matters.

6. For the, aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. All these petitions are dismissed. M.Y.H./547/P Bail refused.