IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 703 of 2017
Saeed
Ahmed
...
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
------------------------------
Criminal Bail Application No. 860 of 2017
Mehmood-ul-Haque..
...
...
..Applicant
Versus
The
State
.
..
.Respondent
Date
of hearing and order : 26.07.2017
Mr. Nishat Warsi, advocate for
applicant in BA No.703/17
Mr. Khan Zaman Khattak, advocate for applicant
in BA No.860/17
Mir Hussain Abbasi, Assistant Attorney
General
Mirza Tanveer Ahmed, Asstt. Prosecutor
FIA
I.O Inspector Shaukat Malhan, FIA
O R D E R
Fahim
Ahmed Siddiqui, J: This single order will
dispose of the above two bail applications moved on behalf of applicants Saeed
Ahmed (BA No. 703/2017) and Mehmood-ul-Haque (BA No. 860/2017) as both of them
are involved in the instant criminal case on the basis of one and the same FIR.
The applicants by filing these applications raised the plea for their release
on bail during trial under Section 497 Cr.P.C in a case registered against them
under FIR No.13/2017 of Police Station FIA, ACC, Karachi under Sections 109,
409, 468, 471 PPC read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act-II,
1947.
2. The
learned advocates for the applicants and the learned Prosecutor enjoyed the
full opportunity of addressing the Court. I have considered their submissions
and gone through the record of the case. From whatever said and produced before
me, I have observed as under:
(a)
The
allegations against the applicants are that the applicants in collusion with
each other as well as the other co-accused have embezzled and misappropriate an
amount of Rs.6,50,000/- by depositing the cheques of the affectees of Lyari
Expressway by opening fake accounts in Saving Bank GPO, Karachi.
(b)
There
is two years delay in lodging of FIR, but the name of applicants does not
transpire within the body of FIR when the same was lodged after conducting a
thorough enquiry. In such a situation, the case against the applicants requires
further enquiry.
(c)
The
applicant Saeed Ahmed is the Assistant Superintendent in Post Office while
applicant Mehmood-ul-Haque is the postman, as such their involvement in the
Saving Bank requires further probe.
(d)
As
far as abetment is concerned, the same is to be established through separate
corroborative piece of evidence and for the same, the statement of co-accused
is not sufficient.
(e)
It
is also a question of further inquiry that whether any one of the applicants
has collected cheques from the Nazarat of this Court.
(f)
It
is also worth important that the amount of cheques mentioned in the FIR and
other documents does not match to the total amount claimed to be embezzled and
misappropriated, as such on this score the case requires further inquiry.
3. In
the backdrop of the above observation, I am of the considered view that a case
of bail has been made out for the applicants, as such both bail applications
are allowed and applicants are admitted to bail subject to furnishing surety of
Rs. 200,000/- each up to the entire satisfaction of the trial Court.
4. Before
parting, I would like to further observe that if the applicants after getting
bail does not appear before the trial Court and the trial Court is satisfied
that the applicants become absconders then the trial Court is fully authorised
to take every action against the applicants and their surety including
cancellation of bail without making a reference to this Court.
J
U D G E