IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Criminal Bail Application No. 1145
of 2024
|
DATE |
ORDER
WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE |
Present: Mr.
Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
18.09.2024
M/s.
Tahir Mehmood and Arifullah Khan advocates for applicant/accused
Pir Riaz Muhammad Shah DAG
Mr. Rehman Aziz Malik advocate for the
complainant
I.O/Inspector Sanaullah, FIA Karachi
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Naimatullah Phulpoto, J.- Applicant/accused
Syed Salahuddin seeks post arrest bail
in Crime No.05/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471,
477-A, 109, 34 PPC registered at P.S FIA, CBC, Karachi. Prior to this, applicant/accused
applied for the same relief before learned Special Court (Offences in Banks)
Sindh at Karachi, the same was rejected vide order dated 20.04.2024.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are
that Fahad Butt a British citizen made complaint against applicant/accused Syed
Salahuddin ex-Branch Manager DIBPL and others regarding embezzlement by the
employees of Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan, alleging therein that complainant
Fahad Butt is the customer of Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan since 2017, he was
subjected to embezzlement of USD 866,000/- and Rs.161,000,000/- which were
deposited in Term Deposits in Dubai Islamic Bank for monthly and yearly
profits. It is alleged that when investment was likely to be mature,
complainant and his family intended to invest, the amount in various Government
of Pakistan schemes for overseas Pakistanis, they approached Dubai Islamic
Bank, they were shocked to know that their money has been embezzled. On
01.11.2023 complainant filed complaint before CEO Junaid Ahmed. After inquiry,
FIR No.05/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471,
477-A, 109, 34 PPC was registered at P.S FIA, CBC, Karachi against
applicant/accused Syed Salahuddin and others. After usual investigation,
challan was submitted before learned Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh at
Karachi.
3. Mr. Tahir Mehmood advocate for the
applicant/accused contended the applicant/accused is innocent; that trial Court
lacks jurisdiction to try this case; that material collected during investigation
is insufficient to connect the applicant/accused in the commission of the
offence; that P.Ws in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C have
not specifically implicated the applicant/accused in the commission of the
offences; that case against the applicant/accused is entirely depends upon
documentary evidence, which is in possession of the prosecution; that there is
no possibility of tempering with the same and prayed for bail. In support of
their contentions, reliance has been placed upon the cases reported as Mumtaz
Ali Solangi vs. The State (2021 YLR 50), Usman Farooqi vs. The State (1999
P.Cr.L.J 1186), Syed Zulqarnain Shah vs. The State (2022 P.Cr.L.J 112),
Muhammad Zafar and others vs. The State (2015 YLR 1446) and Wajid Ali vs. D.C
Lahore (2000 MLD 1572).
4. Pir Riaz Muhammad Shah DAG assisted by
counsel appearing for the complainant argued that applicant/accused
misappropriated and embezzled huge amount of complainant and his family; that
applicant/accused transferred some amount in the name of his wife, who is
co-accused and absconder in this case. It is further submitted that
applicant/accused being Manager of Dubai Islamic Bank through deceitful means
had withdrawn and transferred amount of Rs.48,927,200/- and USD 608,913/- from
the accounts of complainant Fahad Butt through different banking instruments
and vouchers by fake and forged signatures of the complainant; that expert has
also opined that signatures of the complainant have been forged. Lastly, argued
that applicant/accused might temper with the evidence if enlarged on bail and
prayed for dismissal of the bail application.
5. We have perused the contents of FIR,
statements of P.Ws recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, Expert opinion and other
material collected during investigation.
6. It appears from the record that
applicant/accused Syed Salahuddin and others misappropriated the amount of the
complainant and encashed as many as 21 bank instruments on the different dates
without consent and knowledge of complainant Fahad Butt, by his fake and forged
signatures upon the banking instruments. According to expert’s opinion “the
signatures appearing on the aforesaid bank instruments do not tally with the
previous routine admitted signatures and specimen signatures of victim/complainant
Mr. Fahad Butt. Hence, completely fake/fictitious in all respect”. It appears
that applicant/accused used to deposit and withdraw the amount from various
accounts of the complainant with his forged signatures and huge amount was
credited in the accounts opened and operated by the applicant/accused in his
name and in the names of his wife and near relatives. DAG has argued that
applicant/accused might temper with the evidence if enlarged on bail. The
contention of learned advocate for the applicant/accused that P.W Suleman Abid
Bhopal in his 161 Cr.P.C statement has not specifically implicated the
applicant/accused in the commission of the offences. This contention can only
be examined deeply by the trial Court. Deeper appreciation of evidence is not
permissible at bail stage.
7. Prima facie, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant/accused
has committed the alleged offences. No case for grant of post-arrest
bail to the applicant/accused is made out. Resultantly, instant bail application
is dismissed. However, Trial Court is directed to decide the case preferably within
03 months.
8. Needless to
mention here that the observations made herein above are tentative in nature,
the trial Court shall not be influenced by the same while deciding the case of
the applicant/accused on merits.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Wasim
ps