1985 PLP 1357 (MLD)

GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.--This is a petition, for bail on behalf of Sh. Tajammul Hussain who is being prosecuted alongwith others in a case pertaining to F.I.R. No. 59, dated 4-5-1984, P.S. F.I.A., Rawalpindi under section 409/420/468/471, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

2. The present case was registered at the instance of Malik Muhammad Hameed, Manager, National Bank of Pakistan, Murree. Initially, Muhammad Rafiq cashier and Muhammad Hafeez Abbasi, an officer of the Bank were named as accused persons with an allegation that they have in collusion with others misappropriated a sum of Rs.12,72,

516. The F.I.A undertook investigation after registration of the case. Incomplete challan has already been filed. The prosecution case as stated by the learned counsel for the complainant-Bank is that one Zial-ul-Qamar had his Account No. 500 with the National Bank of Pakistan, Murree. The said Zia-ul-Qamar was doing some job in Middle East. Another Account No. 1041 was opened in the same Bank at Murree in the name of Qamar and Company. This Company was introduced by Tajammal Hussain petitioner. Thereafter, cheque book having 25 cheques bearing serial Nos. 778901 to 778925 was issued to operate Account No. 1041. Various cheques were issued from this cheque book not to operate Account No. 1041 but some fictitious Accounts Nos. 1040, 1047 and 1046. It was stated at the Bar that the specimen signature card pertaining to Account No. 500 had only two specimen signatures of Zia-ul-Qamar but Tajammal Hussain petitioner. in collusion with some bank staff added two more signatures on the said specimen signatures card of Zia-ul-Qamar. He not only introduced Qamar and Company for opening of Account No. 1041 but also scribed specimen signatures of Zia-ul-Qamar on the card of specimen signatures pertaining to Account No. 1041. Under the cheques issue from the cheque book mentioned above, a total sum of Rs.12,72,516 was withdrawn from the abovementioned fictitious account by the petitioner and his co-accused. In support of this petition, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Muhammad Rafiq Head Cashier, Hafeez Abbasi, an officer of the Bank and Dr. Altaf, co-accused of the present petitioner have already been allowed bail and as such, the petitioner is also entitled to bail for the same reasons; that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. that the statements of various witnesses under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded three months after the registration of the case which cast doubt on the verasity of those statements; and finally that the Bank Manager and the Chaukidar of the Bank who saw the present petitioner coming and going in the Bank Branch were not made to join in test identification parade. It was, therefore, argued that the case of the petitioner is that of further inquiry and he be, therefore, allowed bail.

3. The learned counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed this petition for bail.

4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties. In our view, it is not a case of further inquiry. The Investigating Officer has collected evidence against the petitioner which is prima facie, supported by the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. The case of the present petitioner is definitely distinguishable from the case of the three accused already allowed bail by the learned Special Judge Banking. It is a fact that the petitioner is not named as an accused in the F.I.R. but that fact alone is not sufficient to allow bail to the petitioner. He was detected as an accused on his own admission during another Bank fraud case in District Abbotabad. The other two points that the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. were recorded after three months of the registration of the case or that the two witnesses were not made to join the test identification parade will be considered by the learned trial Judge after recording of the evidence during the trial. We find no merits in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. H. A. K.?????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail declined.