ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

Cr.Bail.Appl.No.S-  101  of  2017

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

05.06.2017.

Mr. Zaheeruddin S. Leghari, Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Aurangzaib Talpur, Standing Counsel.

                             =

          Through instant bail application, the applicant is seeking post arrest bail in

Crime No.01 of 2017 registered at PS FIA Crime Circle Hyderabad u/s 409, 109 PPC r/w Section 5 (2) of PCA 1974.

          Precisely, the relevant facts of the prosecution case are that on inquiry by the FIA, it revealed that the present applicant misappropriated the amount of Rs.14,73,700/- during the period of 2011 to 2013 as the applicant was Postmaster at Post Office Gujri in that period.

          Learned counsel for the applicant inter alia contended that the allegation against the applicant requires further probe on the plea that it is alleged that the applicant being Postmaster received the bills of the WAPDA of the amount referred to here as above but he failed to deposit the same in the GPO. It is contended that in case such misappropriation was caused why the post office as well as WAPDA remained silent for the period of three years and none pointed out this illegality / misappropriation of the amount which shows that this case is based on ulterior motives. He further contended that the applicant being Postmaster received the bills and sent the same to main GPO for further transfer of amount to the WAPDA whereas the WAPDA is also not the complainant. Such department is basically the aggrieved department. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the cases reported as 2001 P.Cr.L.J. 730, 2007 SCMR 1958, 2005 SCMR 1666 and 1978 SCMR 64.

          Learned Standing Counsel contends that the trial court order is in accordance with law and the applicant produced the false certificates hence he is not entitled for the bail.

          It is the matter of fact that the case of the prosecution is that misappropriation was committed by the applicant during the period of 2011 to 2013 and nature of the misappropriation is that the applicant being the Postmaster was competent to receive the bills from the consumers of WAPDA and after receipt the same to transmit to GPO for transfer of said amount to the WAPDA. Admittedly in three years none raised objection if those bills including the amount was not deposited or even the bills were transferred to the GPO or amount was deposited in the GPO. It cannot be expected that in any post office there is no mechanism of routine audit as well as under this period the beneficiary (WAPDA) has not complained for non-depositing the amount / receiving that amount. Further instant case is based on the documents which are in possession of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, this is a case of further probe. Accordingly, the applicant is admitted to post arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.500,000/- (Rupees five lac) and P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.       

                                                                                                JUDGE

Tufail