Crl. Bail Appln. No.S-414 of 2013.
|
DATE OF HEARING |
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF HON’BLE JUDGE |
05.11.2013.
For Hearing.
Mr. Mohammad Ismail Chandio, advocate for applicant along with applicant.
Mr. Zulifqar Ali Jatoi, D.P.G.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, J- Applicant/accused Ashique Muhammad alias Ashique Ali Jamali has moved this pre arrest bail application in Crime No.04/2013 registered at Police Station A.C.E, Kamber Shahdadkot for offence punishable under sections 409, 477-A, 34, PPC R/w section 5(2), Act-II of 1947, as his pre arrest bail application was declined by the Special Judge, Anti-corruption (Provincial), Larkana vide order dated.14.09.2013.
The allegation against the present applicant/accused is that he along with accused Hubdar Ali being Supervisor and ADO (E) in Education Department deposited in their personal account amounting to Rs.59,863/- which were meant for salaries of staff and then misappropriated the same, hence the above referred case was registered against the applicant.
It is contended by the leaned counsel for the applicant/accused that the applicant is innocent and has been involved in this case falsely; that he deposited the salary in his personal account bonafidely which he then paid to the concerned; that there is delay of more than six years in lodging of the FIR and offence is not falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C and he being responsible officer has surrendered himself voluntarily before the Court. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in service in Education Department and he did not misappropriate any amount but local police is after him to arrest him in this case due to ulterior motive to humiliate and harass him and in case if bail is not confirmed then he will suffer irreparable loss, as such according to him the present applicant/accused is entitled for confirmation of bail.
Learned D.P.G while rebutting the contention of learned counsel for the applicant has opposed the confirmation of bail to the present applicant/accused on the ground that loss has been caused to the public exchequer.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant/accused and learned D.P.G and have perused the case papers available on record.
From the perusal of record, it appears that the alleged incident took place in the year 2006, whereas the FIR has been registered on 02.9.2013 after the delay of almost six years for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished, therefore, on this ground false implication of the applicant/accused in this case cannot be ruled out. It further reveals that present applicant/accused is facing investigation for the last more than two months but no charge sheet has been submitted in the Court of law. The offence under which the present applicant/accused has been booked are either bailable or their punishments do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C, except section 409, PPC and its applicability will be determined at the time of trial and not at this stage.
As observed above in this matter the challan has not yet been submitted and the sections applied in this case are either bailable or their punishment do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, if the applicant/accused is arrested likely to be put to harassment and would not only lose his liberty but also his service before the conclusion of trial. In my view, the conditions prescribed for pre-arrest bail in this case stand satisfied. Under these circumstances, no exceptional ground appears in this case to withhold the bail and if the bail is refused then no fruitful result would be achieved. Therefore, while relying on the case of Muhammad Dilpazeer versus The State 1984 P.Cr.L.J 2400, the interim pre arrest bail already granted to the applicant vide order dated 19.9.2013 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions with direction to him to co-operate with the Investigating Agency and as soon as the challan is submitted then to face the trial.
Judge