ORDER SHEET
THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No.36 of 2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order with Signature(s) of Judge(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad
Applicant : Mst. Adeeba Khan wife of Adil Khan
through M/s. Muhammad Saleem
Mangrio and Muhammad Jamil, Advocates.
Respondent : The State/FIA through Mr. Muhammad
Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General.
Complainant : Jahangir Azhar Saeed, Branch Manager,
Bank Al-Falah Limited, through Mr. Syed Israr Ali, Advocate.
Date of hearing : 06.04.2020
Date of Order : 06.04.2020
ORDER
Abdul Maalik Gaddi, J. – Through this bail application, the applicant/accused namely, Mst. Adeeba Khan seeks post-arrest bail in case Crime No.20 of 2019 under Section 409/420/468/471/109/34, PPC, of police station FIA/CBC, Karachi. Prior to filing this bail application, the applicant/accused approached to trial Court for same relief, but her bail plea was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2019; hence, this bail application.
2. The allegations against the applicant/accused is that on the relevant date and time while she was holding post as Branch Manager of Bank Al-Falah Limited, Block-F, North Nazimabad, Branch, Karachi, has committed fraud with joint account holders namely, Mr. Mushtaq Qureshi and Ms. Manzoor Qureshi under the impression that their amount was deposited in fixed deposit, however, no investment certificate was issued. She kept them on false hopes and she was involved in a parallel banking and misappropriated huge amount of Rs.22 Million.
3. Mr. Muhammad Saleem Mangio, learned Counsel for the applicant/accused Mst. Adeeba Khan has contended that accused is a lady, mother of minor daughter and used to look after her cancer patient mother; that she resigned from Bank Al-Falah on 25.09.2019 and thereafter she is living life of a housewife. Case has been challaned. Present applicant is no more required for investigation, therefore, there is no apprehension that she will tamper the evidence. The investigating officer searched the house of accused on 21.11.2019, but no recovery was made. The senior official of Bank Al-Falah visited the residence of applicant on 07.11.2019 and searched out the same but no recovery was made. No evidence has been collected to connect the accused with the commission of offence. No concrete evidence is on record to show that present applicant has committed alleged offence of misappropriation. The nature of investment is not mentioned in the challan or other documents. The account maintenance certificate was allegedly issued in the sum of Rs.21 Million instead of Rs.22 Million as claimed by the complainant. The complainant has raised no objection or agitated that as to why the account maintenance certificate was being issued in sum less by Rs.1 Million from the actual claim investment. The victim had not made complaint voluntarily at his own. There is no allegation that any forgery was committed by the applicant, though it is claimed by the complainant that Rs.22 Millions were handed over by him to accused for the purpose of investment, but he did not claim any profit throughout. The beneficiaries of misappropriated amount are third parties and applicant is not the beneficiary. The account maintenance certificate was not prepared from the system of the accused/applicant; hence, according to him taking all this aspect of the case, the case of present applicant requires further inquiry and applicant being as a lady accused is entitled for bail. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel has relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Saeed Ahmed v. The State reported in 1996 SCMR 1132;
(ii) Tariq Bashir and 5 others v. The State reported in PLD 1995 Supreme Court 34;
(iii) Zaigham Ashraf v. The State and others reported in 2016 SCMR 18;
(iv) Aman Ullah v. The State and another reported in 2017 YLR 1263;
(v) Muhammad Bilal Anwar Shakir v. The State reported in 2017 MLD 1957;
(vi) Hussain Haqani v. The State reported in 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 161.
4. Conversely, Mr. Muhammad Ahmed, learned Assistant Attorney General, assisted by Mr. Syed Israr Ali, learned Counsel for complainant, while opposing this bail application submits that name of the applicant/accused is appearing in FIR and the complaint. According to him, as per record, the amount was obtained from the victim by the applicant under the impression that amount was deposited in fixed deposit, however, no investment certificate was issued. The account maintenance certificate of the account was issued to the complainant by applicant on 21.02.2019. The account holders were kept on hopes that certificate are being prepared and will be delivered to them after its preparation. The complainant, bank officials and beneficiaries in whose accounts a transaction were credited through pay orders or through other means have implicated the accused lady. She used to obtain various amount from the beneficiaries and thereafter, used to deposit the amount in their accounts for the purpose of adjustment. The applicant is involved in parallel banking. She misappropriate huge amount of Rs.22 Million. The PWs and documentary evidence collected by the investigating officer so far fully connects the accused lady with the commission of offence. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following case laws:-
(i) Chaudhry Shujat Hussain v. The State reported in 1995 SCMR 1249;
(ii) Chief Manager/Attorney, Allied Bank Limited v. Shahid Ullah and others reported in PLD 2009 SC 446;
(iii) Muhammad Haseeb Khan and another v. The State through FIA CBC, Karachi, reported in 2012 P.Cr.L.J. 1;
(iv) Muhammad Hanif S. Kalia and 2 others v. The State reported in 2009 P.Cr.L.J. 1192;
(v) Ahmed Khan v. The State reported in 2013 YLR 2233.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also examined the police file, so made available before us.
6. It is the case with allegation against the applicant that while she was posted as Branch Manager at Bank Al-Falah Limited, received various amounts in cash or through cheques from Hassan Sardar, Jan Muhammad and Burhan Ahmed on the pretext that their amount shall be invested in profitable product of the bank. Contrary to this, the applicant dishonestly utilized the same amount for her own use. It appears from the police papers that she also used to receive amounts from the customers as loan with assurance that she will return it with interest. She also signed promissory note and undated signed cheques of different amounts of her accounts in this regard and handed over to the persons from whom she obtained amounts. She used to pay profit amount to these customers at her own and not through the bank transactions. On the demand of the customers for the return of their amounts, accused returned the same to them by issuing CDRs from joint account of account holder of complainant namely, Mushtaq A. Qureshi and his wife Ms. Manzoor Qureshi maintaining account in Bank Al-Falah, Block-F, North Nazimabad, Karachi by making forged signatures of account holder on CDR applications. She induced Mushtaq Qureshi and his wife to invest their amount in profitable products of the bank and obtained cheques of Rs.22 Millions from them which were not invested in any bank product rather she prepared applications for issuance CDR’s without the knowledge and consent of account holder, in their absence by misusing her official position.
7. It is noted that the applicant is nominated in FIR as well as in complaint with similar allegations. During investigation prosecution witnesses in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements have implicated the accused in the commission of the offence. Nothing on record that prosecution witnesses and complainant of the case who is Branch Manager of Bank Al-Falah have any ill will/malice with the applicant. The investigating officer of the case during investigation has collected sufficient documentary evidence which is on record prima facie connect the applicant/accused in the commission of the offence, which appears to be serious and heinous in nature.
8. It has vehemently been argued by learned Counsel for applicant that applicant is a lady accused and confined in jail since her arrest, therefore, under Section 497, Cr.P.C. the discretion by granting bail may be exercised in favour of applicant. We have, however, not felt persuaded to agree with learned Counsel for applicant and say that the proviso to Section 497, Cr.P.C. with regard to women accused is suggestive of a liberal treatment for the grant of bail. However, it does not ipso facto entitle them to bail irrespective of the gravity of the offence and the attending circumstances. It is pertinent to note here that corruption/fraud/embezzlement has become great menace to our society and needless to say that same is not an offence against individual rather an offence against society and involvement of females in such like offences is further detrimental to social fabric. The females involved in such degenerated offences would not be automatically entitled to discretion merely by virtue of fact unless law so permits on merits. But here in this case, allegations against application is that while she was posted as Branch Manager of Bank, she embezzled/committed fraud of huge amount of account holders.
9. During the course of arguments, learned Assistant Attorney General, assisted by learned Counsel for the complainant has pointed out that lady accused (Mst. Adeeba Khan) is also involved in crime No.19 of 2019, which is a bank fraud case. He has also filed statement showing that this applicant is also involved in thirteen criminal cases, therefore, according to him, the applicant is habitual of committing forgery and fraud. When confronted this fact, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant submits that the said cases are also false and also having different facts, which have no nexus with this case.
10. There is another aspect of the case which cannot be overlooked that applicant was employee in the bank and was trustee of the amount of the account holders. She was not there to misappropriate/embezzle the amount of account holders for her personal use. The tendency to grab public property and embezzle public money has increased to a cancerous magnitude. The desire of amass wealth by illegal means has penetrated in all walks of life. In this scenario, it is high time that such like offence be dealt with iron hands. It is hence duty of all organs of the State that while dealing such like cases, particularly, in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, the volume and extent of injury to society both materially and for the moral fabric thereof, is also kept in view. We have already observed that sufficient documentary evidence available against the applicant/accused in the commission of the offence, therefore, in view of the above, we have no reason to differ with the impugned order dated 11.12.2019, passed by the trial Court. Consequently, the bail application stands dismissed.
11. The case laws cited by the learned Counsel for applicant have been perused and considered by us but did not find applicable to the facts of the present case, hence, no helpful for him.
12. Needless to mention here that observations, if any, made herein above are tentative in nature and shall not effect the merits of the case. Since the case pertains to embezzlement of huge amount by the applicant, therefore, trial Court is directed to proceed the matter expeditiously and decide the same as early as possible as per law and no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to either side; so also, compliance report be submitted to this Court through MIT-II.
13. This bail application was heard and dismissed through our short order dated 06.04.2020 and these are the detailed reasons thereof.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Faizan A. Rathore/PA*