1999 PLP 681 (MLD)

Raushan Ali Essani, Dy.A.-G. for the State. By this common order the abovementioned two bail applications are being disposed of, as the facts of both the applications are similar. They arise out of the same F.LR. The relevant facts for the decision of these bail applications are that F.I.A. State Bank Circle learnt from press clipping of Daily Dawn about the fraudulent acts of some officers of the State Bank in its salary section, Administration Department in the Central Directorate at Karachi. The news appearing in the paper disclosed that some officers while working in their official capacity had indulged in forgery and fraud and thereby they had withdrawn cash amount unlawfully which was meant for "cash rewards in lieu of advance increments and house rent allowance" to different employees. Accused Muhammad Rafiuddin, a Senior Assistant was nominated in the F.I.R. as the principal accused, as after holding of the enquiry the F.I.R. had been registered by F.I.A. The said F.I.R. further disclosed that accused Muhammad Rafiuddin had committed the forgery and withdrawn the amount and misappropriated the same. Sum of the money embezzled was shown as Rs.16,81,566 and the allegation was that this sum of money was embezzled and misappropriated by accused Muhammad Rafiuddin in collusion or with some other employees of the State Bank. It was also mentioned in the F.I.R. that accused Muhammad Rafuddin managed to return ssm of Rs.5,71,959 and had promised to return the rest of the money but before returning the rest of the money he had absconded. During the investigation, it was found that the present applicants had attested the signatures of some of the recipients and had also signed some other documents relating to the said misappropriation. The State Bank also initiated departmental inquiry in which it was found that applicant Abdul Jamil Khan was responsible for misappropriation of Rs.1,38,147 while applicant Muhammad Farooque Siddiqui was liable for the misappropriation of sum of 8.56,

479. The departmental enquiry also proved that in all 18 persons were responsible for the negligence including the two present applicants and Muhammad Rafiuddin but the F.I.A. chose to implicate only four persons as accused in the criminal proceedings while the remaining 14 were facing only departmental action. Surprisingly, the present two applicants were not removed from the service as allegation against them was that of committing "negligence" and they were punished with stopping of the increments and also with the recovery of the amount for which each of them was found responsible by way of deduction from salaries. Applicant Abdul Jamil Khan on coming to known that F.I.A. had lodged prosecution against him, surrendered himself before the trial Court on 25-8-1996 when the trial Court allowed him interim pre-arrest bail. However, on 2-9-1996 when the interim pre-arrest bail was not confirmed, the applicant was taken into custody and he is still in custody. The applicant Muhammad Farooque Siddiqui was arrested on 20-8-1996. The learned counsel for the applicants have argued that the applicants while performing their duties had to attest and sign huge number of documents and some-times they had to do this job in haste and, therefore, it could be that they had attested or signed the incriminating documents without "mens rea". In any case, they pleaded that the department had found them guilty of negligence and not of criminal misappropriation. Since the department has also inflicted punishment on them their involvement in the criminal activity requires further enquiry. The State Bank Officers who had assisted the learned D.A.-G. stated that the applicants have been allowed to remain in service as charge of negligence alone has been proved against them in the departmental enquiry. The learned D.A.-G., however, has opposed the grant of bail to the applicants and according to him the applicants are liable for abetment of the crime committed by principal accused Muhammad Rafiuddin. Be that as it may, this case is triable by Special Judge, Anti Corruption and the evidence mainly comprises of documents which have already been secured by the investigating agency. The alleged offence is committed between 1991 and 1993 while the F.I.R. was registered in the year 1995 and by now i.e. in the month of November, 1996 only an interim challan has been produced p, against the applicants. This suggests that the trial against the applicants will take sufficiently long time to conclude. Besides, sections applied by the prosecution in the charge-sheet against the applicant are 420, 466, 471, 477-A, read with section 34, P.P.C. and section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947). The maximum punishment provided for these sections is below ten years and, therefore, the case against the applicants is not covered by prohibitory clause in section 497, Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the applicants have relied on the case reported in 19!15 MLD 766 in this case the accused who were Government servants and were not required for further investigation by the investigating agency and were involved in the trial which was likely to take sufficiently long time-were granted bail. Considering the facts and circumstances abovementioned I find that the case against the applicants is of further enquiry and, therefore, they are entitled to the grant of bail at this stage. Consequently, these applications are allowed. The applicants are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing one surety each in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 (Rupees two lacs) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. N.H.Q./A-133/K Bail granted.