CRL.BAIL APPLN.NO.S-341 OF 2012

17.08.2012 Mr. Muhammad Hamzo Buriro for the Applicant

Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch, DAG, for the State

**********************

O R D E R

SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR---J., Applicant Shah Dino has filed instant application under Section 497 Cr.P.C in crime No.11 of 2011, Crime Circle, Sukkur, under Sections 409 / 420 / 468 / 471 / 34 read with Section 5 of sub-section 2, Act 1947.

2. Relevant facts of the case are that, according to FIR, during inquiry, it was established, that, Shah Dino employee of Money Order paying clerk and Khadim Hussain postman, both posted at GPO Khairpur, have committed misappropriation of Rs.173,700/= by making Twenty Two fake Money Orders, thereby; they have committed offence of criminal breach of trust.

3. Case was challaned. During trial, alleged amount was deposited by the applicants.

4. Learned counsel for applicants has inter-alia argued that, since eight months, applicant is in jail, in-question amount has been deposited by the applicant; applicant has been retired compulsory from the Service; entire documents are in possession of prosecution.

Learned counsel has relied upon the case of Sohail Masood Ansari V. the State, reported in 1997 MLD 1897, case of Anwar Zada V. the State, reported in P.Crl.L.J 730, case of Wajid Ali V. the State, reported in 2000 MLD 1572, case of Abdul Jaleel Khan V. the State reported in 1998 MLD 202, 1995 S.C.M.R 170.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the bail application on the ground that this is a case against the society, sufficient evidence is available, therefore, applicant is not entitled for bail.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. After examination of police papers and relevant authorities, it’s very relevant to refer the citations relied by the learned counsel.

In the case of Sohail Masood Ansari (supra), it is held that:-

“misappropriated amount was deposited by the accused, accused remained in jail for six months, nothing was recovered from the applicant, bail was granted”

In the case of Anwar Zada V. the State (supra), it is held that:-

“investigation was complete and the accused was no more required for investigation, bail was granted”

In the case of Wajid Ali V. the State (supra), it was held that”-

“documents and relevant record was already with the police, challan was submitted in the Court, accused was no more required for the investigation therefore, bail was granted”

In the case of Abdul Jaleel Khan V. the State, reported in 1998 MLD 202, it was held that:-

“accused had deposited substantial amount out of alleged misappropriated amount in the Treasury before the registration of case therefore, bail was granted.

In the case of Saeed Ahmed V. the State (supra) it is held that:-

“case entirely depend upon documentary evidence which was in possession of the prosecution and no possibility of tampering with such evidence existed therefore, bail was granted”

7. Accordingly, in the instant case, applicant is in jail since eight months, still no witnesses have been examined, he has been retired compulsory from his Service, nothing is required to be investigated from the accused, as case has been challaned, whole case depends upon the documents which are in possession of the prosecution, therefore, there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution case thus apparently applicant has made out a case for grant of after arrest bail.

8. Keeping in view the facts and the circumstances and the precedents referred above, applicant’s case also falls within the parameters as discussed above, therefore, applicant is also entitled for bail.

This bail was decided by short order tentative observations.

J U D G E

Brohi