SAEED AMMAR BIN ALI ALVI vs THE STATE and another

ORDER

' CH. IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN, J.---Petitioner Saeed Ammar Bin Ali Alvi through the instant petition has prayed for post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No, 698 registered under sections 408/381, P.P.C. With Police Station Civil Lines, Lahore on 10-7-2010.

2. Briefly the prosecution case as per the F.I.R. Is that the petitioner since the year, 2005 was working as accountant in Anam Telecom, Davis Road, Lahore belonging to the complainant. In January, 2009, the manager of that franchise checked the accounts and it was found that he (petitioner) has mis-appropriated an amount of Rs,7,00,000 of the same. He in presence of Malik Tauseef and Syed Mohsin Raza confessed to have done so. He and his wife Mst. Aneela Ammar promised to return the said amount to the complainant within two years and on such, promise, the complainant also employed his said wife in his franchise as customers relation Officer. He had returned an amount of Rs,1,60,000 to the complainant. Once again, when the complainant found his activities to be suspicious, he then checked the accounts. It transpired that an amount of Rs,13,33,000 has been mis-appropriated by him. He in this way has misappropriated an amount'

Rs,18,70,000 of that Franchise and also stole away it's record.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that he statedly is behind the bars since 12-11-2010 and a previous non-convict.

4. It has been submitted by the side of the prosecution that he has remained an absconder for few months. The fact remains that the alleged offence does not attract the prohibition contained in section 497(1), Cr.P.C. It has been explained by his side that the complainant has developed illicit intimacy with his wife and he had been sending him out of station for the work of his franchise and in his absence in collusion with the local police got him declared proclaimed offender and fact he was not in the knowledge of such fact. Hence in such circumstances, his alleged abscondence cannot come in his way to the grant of bail to him.

5. It has also been submitted by the side of the complainant that his trial has commenced and some evidence has been recorded therein and his side has not cross-examined the witnesses. I am afraid that the commencement of trial is also not a clog in the way of bail to him. In the case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Rafique and another (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 585), their Lordships have expressed the view that when case of an accused may, otherwise, be found fit for bail and covered subsection (2) of section 497, Cr.P.C., then he becomes entitled to bail as of right irrespective of the fact that the trial has commenced as it is a matter of practice. '

6. I, in these circumstances find that the case for his enlargement on bail has been made out.

7. The petition, therefore, is accepted and he is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 (Rupees one lac) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.