ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Cr. B.A No. 770 of 2016

______________________________________________________

Date                        Order with signature of Judge

Present

Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar

Kamran Rasheed                   ………..…                       Applicant

V E R S U S

The State                                 ……………                     Respondents

Date of hearing 04.07.2016

Mr. Farooq Rasheed advocate for applicant.

Mr. Ashfaq Rafiq Janjua Standing Counsel a/w Muhammad Shafiq I.O of the case..

-------------------------

Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J: There was some inquiry relating to the mismatch between deposits in Virtual Agent System and the funds submitted in the PIA’s collection account dedicated for Virtual Agency payments. During further study it was observed that the deposits collected from two of the agencies named Al-Jannat Travel and Al-Falah Travel were not submitted into the collection account. Since the applicant was Ex-Senior System Manager, therefore, PIA found him responsible and implicated in the case in  hand.    

2.      Learned counsel argued that applicant has been implicated falsely. The alleged crime is said to have been committed in the year 2014 for which belatedly the inquiry was started and FIR was registered in the year 2016. He further argued that incriminating material collected by the I.O shows that the case of the applicant requires further inquiry unless the evidence is recorded which is mostly based on documents it cannot proved whether the applicant has committed any offence or not.     

3.      Learned Standing Counsel argued that there are so many entries in the bank statement which shows that the two travel agencies deposited the amount in the bank account of applicant and his father and material is available on record. The I.O further submits that father of the applicant himself deposited pay order in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- to settle the amount which he illegally transferred in his bank account. I.O further submits that the liability against the present applicant is more than Rs. 2500,000/- but since Rs.500,000/- has already been paid by the father of the applicant, therefore, prosecution would have no objection if the bail is granted to the applicant subject to furnishing tangible security in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lac only) in addition to reasonable amount of surety. On this proposal, learned counsel for the applicant sought instructions and agreed to furnish tangible security. Learned Standing Counsel also referred to the case of Shamroze Khan in which the Apex Court granted bail to the applicant in the corruption case subject to depositing the amount.  

4.      In view of the no objection, the applicant is granted bail subject to furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (rupees one lac) with P.R bond in the like amount. In addition thereto the applicant shall also furnish tangible security in the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (rupees twenty lac). Learned counsel for the applicant argued that since today is the last working day before Eid holidays, therefore, he requests that surety and security may be allowed to furnish with the Nazir of this Court. The learned Standing Counsel and I.O of the case both have no objection. Let surety, P.R bond and security as ordered above may be furnished with the Nazir of this Court. The Nazir may also verify the security furnished in pursuance of this order. On first working day, the  office will communicate the order to the learned trial Court.

                                                                             JUDGE

 Aadil Arab