1986 PLP 2821 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.‑‑This is a petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. for bail, by Haji Allah Ditta and Musa Khan petitioners, in case under section 409/419/420/468/471/109, P.P.C. and section 5 (2) of the P . C . A . 1947 registered at Police Station F . I . A . /Commercial Bank Circle, Multan vide F.I.R. No.86 of 1985, dated 19‑12‑1985.

2. The prosecution case briefly is that on 16‑6‑1981, Haji Qadir Bakhsh opened current A./c No.2110 with United Bank Ltd. Saddar Bazar, D.G. Khan. On 17‑6‑1981, a sum of Rs.1,00,000 only was deposited in his account. On 9‑4‑1983 a cheque book containing cheque leaves from 255201 to 255225 was issued in the name of Haji Qadir Bakhsh and on the same day, through cheque No.255201, Rs.1,00,000 were withdrawn from his account. Out of this one lac, Rs.70,000 were re‑deposited in the Bank where against cumulative deposit certificates No.S.T.D.382269 valuing Rs.50,000, E‑139746 and E‑139747 valuing Rs.10,000 each were issued in the name of Haji Allah Ditta petitioner who encashed the same on 23‑4‑1983 although the certificate had to become payable after 66 months. On 11‑12‑1985 Haji Qadir Bakhsh through notice intimated the Bank that Rs.1,00,000 had been fraudulently withdrawn from his account by a bogus cheque on 9‑4‑1983 when he was out of country. During enquiry, Saifullah Shah, Bank Officer posted in the Branch admitted in writing that payment of Rs.1,00,000 was made to a wrong person. He promised to get the matter decided but subsequently resiled from his statement. The investigation revealed that Musa Khan petitioner on the identification of Allah Ditta petitioner impersonating himself as Hail Qadir Bakhsh withdrew Rs.1,00,000 from the account of Haji Qadir Bakhsh through bogus cheque. So the petitioner were arrested. They moved application for bail before the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore, which was dismissed on 24‑5‑1986.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners have committed the alleged offences inasmuch as there is delay of 2 years in lodging the F.I.R.; that there is no incriminating evidence against the petitioners; that the evidence collected against Haji Allah Ditta petitioner is of a very tainted nature; that the evidence collected by the police fails to connect the petitioners with the commission of the crime; that no parade for the identification of Musa Khan petitioner was held; that since payment of Rs.1,00,000 was made in routine, therefore, it was not possible for the prosecution witnesses to identify the person who had withdrawn Rs.1,00.000 from the account of Hail Qadir Bakhsh after 2 years of the occurrence and that the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Lahore has rejected the application on surmises and conjectures.

4. We have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel in support of his submissions with care. We have not been able to persuade ourselves to agree with him. We find that the learned Special Court (Offences in Banks), Lahore, has considered the question of the grant of bail to the petitioners in accordance with the guide‑line given by the superior Courts has passed a well‑reasoned order. We further find that during investigation, the police has collected evidence to the effect that the thumb‑impression affixed on observe side as well as reverse side of cheque No.255201 as drawer and recipient o Rs.1,00,000 were of Musa Khan; that report from the Finger Print Expert reveals that the cheque contains thumb‑impressions of Musa Khan petitioner; that out of Rs.1,00,000 fraudulently drawn by Musa Khan petitioner, Rs.30,000 were kept by him and Rs.70,000 were give to Allah Ditta petitioner; that at the time of drawing Rs.1,00,000 through cheque No.255201. Musa Khan petitioner posed himself as Haji Qadi Bakhsh and Haji Allah Ditta petitioner identified him; that Musa Khan and Allah Ditta petitioners are real brothers; that on 9‑4‑1983 the had gone to the United Bank Ltd. Saddar Bazar Branch, D.G. Khan where they, with the active connivance of Saifullah bank officer, go the photograph of Hail Qadir Bakhsh account holder, temporarily removed and replaced the photograph of Musa Khan petitioner. For what has been stated above, we feel that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioners, have committed the alleged offences. The application is, therefore, dismissed. S. A. Bail declined.