THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Cr. Bail Application No.1045 of 2016

 

Applicant                   :           Asghar Ali Korai

                                                through Malik Altaf Javed, Advocate

 

Respondent               :           The State through Ms. Naheed Parveen, DAG along

with Mr. Hussain Bux, P.P. Pakistan Railways and

SI/ IO M. Suleman & SI/ SHO Tahir Mansoor Ahmed PS Railway, Karachi City

 

 

Date of hearing         :           27.3.2018

 

Date of Order            :           27.3.2018

 

ORDER

 

 

Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J:    Applicant/ accused is present on interim pre-arrest bail granted to him by this Court vide Order dated 25.7.2016. Today, this bail application is fixed for confirmation or otherwise.

2.         Brief facts of the case as per FIR are that complainant Abdul Kareem Memon. Pakistan Railways Divisional Office (DPO), Karachi has written letter No.DPO/MISC/2016 dated 10.3.2016 to the SHO RPS City, Karachi for registration of FIR against accused Asghar Ali Korai, Head Clerk, Personnel Branch, DS Office, Karachi that accused has fraudulently forged the personal data of Railway employees by misusing the available data and official stamps and he also misused/ prepared the fake signature of the complainant on different documents and involved in fraud of forged documents by misusing the official seal/ stamps and prepared false signatures of the complainant Divisional Personnel Officer Abdul Kareem Memon, DPO, Karachi.

 

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant/ accused has contended that the applicant/ accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further contended that the applicant/ accused was appointed on 20.7.1986 and till yet there is no such allegation against him. He further contended that no specific role has been assigned to the applicant/ accused and that no date, time and place of alleged incident has been mentioned in the FIR. He further contended that Section 420 PPC is bailable whereas Sections 468 and 471 PPC are non-cognizable offences and that Section 5(2) PCA-II, 1947 is not attracted against the applicant/ accused. He next contended that all the PWs are interested witnesses being the sub-ordinates of the complainant and that charge sheet has been submitted and the applicant/ accused is no more required for further investigation and recovery. He, therefore, prayed that, ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the applicant/ accused may be confirmed.

 

4.         Learned Prosecutor Railway has opposed the bail application by arguing that the name of the applicant/ accused is clearly mentioned in the FIR with specific allegation that he being the Head Clerk of Personnel Branch, DS Office, Karachi has fraudulently forged the personal data of Railway employees by misusing the available data and official stamps and he also fraudulently mis-used/ made the fake signatures of the complainant Abdul Kareem Memon, Divisional Personnel Officer, DPO, Karachi on the certain document. She further contended that PWs have also implicated the applicant/ accused with the commission of offence. She, therefore, prayed that the applicant/ accused is not entitled for concession of pre-arrest bail, hence, his bail may be dismissed and interim bail order may be recalled.

 

5.         I have given my anxious thoughts to the contentions raised at the bar and have also gone through the case papers so made available on record.

 

6.         It is an admitted position that the case has been challaned and the applicant is no more required for investigation. The case of the prosecution rest upon the evidence of Railway employees and Railway Police Officials, therefore, no question does arise for tampering of their evidence at the hands of the applicant and the evidence of Railway employees and Railway Police Officials is required to be minutely scrutinized at the time of trial whether the offence as alleged in the FIR allegedly committed by the applicant in a fashion as narrated by the complainant or otherwise. There is nothing on record to show that the applicant is a previous convict or has been arrested in a case of similar nature in past.

 

7.         I have also gone through the FIR which neither show the date of alleged offence nor the time of occurrence of the alleged offence and so also the witnesses cited by the complainant or employees of the complainant. Besides the offences under which the applicant/ accused has been booked either bailable or their punishment do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 CrPC except Section 5(2) PCA-II 1947 and it is yet to be determined at the time of trial whether the said offence is attracted in the present circumstances of the case or otherwise. This aspect of the case requires further probe.

 

8.         It also appears from the record that the applicant/ accused is appearing before trial Court without any substantial progress in the trial. Therefore, in view of what I have observed above, the applicant has made out his case for confirmation of bail. Accordingly, the interim bail granted to the applicant vide Order dated 25.7.2016 is hereby confirmed on same terms and conditions with direction to the applicant/ accused to appear before the trial Court to face trial. Since the matter pertains to 2016, therefore, trial Court is directed to proceed the case expeditiously and decide the same preferably within the period of six months after receipt of this Order. No unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to the either side. Compliance report must reach to this Court through MIT. This Order has been passed in open Court in presence of the parties, who engage the same.

 

 

           JUDGE

 

asim/pa